Honble YADAV, J. –The petitioner has filed the present Misc. Petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.9.1995 passed by the learned Magistrate on the sole ground that once a complaint has been filed under Sec. 200, Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant and one of his witness under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. then in such a situation, he has no jurisdiction whatsoever to send the case for further enquiry by the police station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

(2). Brief facts necessary to be noticed for decision of the present petition are that the present petitioner filed a complaint on 25.8.95 alleging therein that on the same day, at about 10.40 A.M., he has gone to District Consumer Forum Office in connection with his complaint against the official of the District Consumer Forum, which he has made to the State Consumer Forum. It is alleged that so-called accused, who is a responsible Public Officer gave him signal to come out from the office and with anger caught hold of his hand. It is further alleged that the accused took him out-side the boundary of the office of the District Consumer Forum and slapped him twice or thrice. It is further alleged that the complainant was saved due to intervention of Shri Bhikam Chand Pareekh Advocate, Shri Akshay Pareekh Advocate and one boy Mr. Sudheer Kapoor.

(3). After receipt of complaint, the learned Magistrate fixed 26.8.95 for enquiry. On 26.8.95, the complainant was examined and the case was posted on 5.9.95 for further evidence. On 5.9.95, the complainant examined one witness namely Sudheer Kapoor and expressed his desire not to examine any other witness.

(4). Looking into the statements of the complainant and his aforesaid witness, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur to make further enquiry and report as envisaged under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C.

(5). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 5.9.95 as well as order-sheets dated 25.8.95 and 26.8.95.

(6). In my considered opinion, the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly mis-conceived and fallacious. The mandatory provisions contemplated under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. For proper appreciation of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. are reproduced below :–

``Postponement of issue of process :–

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec. 192 may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made;–

(a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Sec. 200.

(2) In an inquiry under Sub-sec. (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit take evidence of witnesses on oath;

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under Sub-sec. (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for the investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

(7). A deep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document