A Magistrate can dismiss a complaint under Section 203, CrPC, without an investigation or inquiry under Section 202, if after examining the complainant, there is no sufficient reason to proceed. However, the Magistrate cannot consider materials outside Section 203, such as statements of witnesses examined by the police or evidence adduced in a counter-case, when dismissing a complaint under Section 203.

ORDER : This is a revision sought to be preferred against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Tanjore in C. R. P. No. 11 of 1957, setting aside the order dismissing the complaint in C, C. No. 448 of 1957 under S. 203, Cr. P. C. by the Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvayaru.

2. The facts are : Dharmaraja Bapu Reddiar filed a private complaint against two persons for an offence under S. 498, I. P. C. This complaint was taken on file as C. C. No. 23 of 1957. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. Then the enquiry was posted for the examination of the accused on 29-3-1957. On that date the complainant was absent. The complaint was dismissed under S. 259, Cr. P. C.

Then the complainant on the same facts filed a second complaint which was numbered as C. C. No. 448 of 1957. The Sub-Magistrate discussed the evidence already taken on the prior complaint and taking into consideration certain facts appearing in the case-diary it will be remembered that in this case there was no reference under S. 202, Cr. P. C. but the party had preferred a complaint after the police had refused to take action - dismissed the complaint. To quote his own words

"On a very careful review of the evidence let in in this case already, I have no hesitation to hold that no case for in offence under S. 498 has been made out ... I therefore take this case on file under S. 498 and dismiss it under S. 203, Cr. P. C."

The learned District Magistrate was moved in revision and he following the decision in Venkatasubba Ayyar v. Soundararaja Ayyangar, AIR 1929 Mad 260 (A), held that the procedure adopted by the learned Sub-Magistrate was wholly illegal and he should not have disposed of the present complaint on the evidence already recorded by him and he should not have relied on any part of the case-diary as substantive evidence, and ordered further inquiry by the Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore, de novo according to law in the light of the observations made by him. Hence this revision.

3. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this revision petition is thoroughly frivolous and the further enquiry ordered by the learned District Magistrate is irreproachable. Here are my reasons.

4. When a complaint is presented, the Subordinate Magistrate must then and there examine the complainant, record his statement and then take one of the following three courses (1) bring the accused to trial (2) for reasons to be recorded direct a local investigation under S. 202, Cr. P. C. or (3) dismiss the complaint under S. 203, Cr. P. C. The object of the examination, which must be thorough, should be to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist: for issuing process against the accused and S. 203 has been devised to prevent an accused person being brought to Court on an ill-founded charge to protect accused from unnecessary harassment and worry; to prevent parties from utilising the machinery of the criminal Court to establish claims which ought to be adjudicated upon by civil Courts alone; and to eliminate grave and gross exaggerations.

But at the same time where the Criminal Procedure Code has given aggrieved citizens the right to approach the Courts directly as well as through the police Courts should not make use of S. 203 to stifle just complaints of serious offences and to substitute the police for the Courts as the sole authority on whose decision the initiation for criminal proceedings for cognisable cases shall begin.

It is incumbent on the Courts to take care that any favouritism by the police should be prevented; besides it is nowhere stated that S. 203 should be used when disputes disclose both civil and criminal liability. The criminal liability portion has got to be adjudicated by criminal Courts. "Dispute of a civil nature" cannot be made use of as a magical formula to short-circuit magisterial work. It is the refuge of mentally bankrupt and lazy magistrates.

5. The materials on which the Magistrate has to act are expressly limited by the section to (1)