The Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint without giving reasons as required by Section 203, Cr.P.C., and the police had no jurisdiction to examine the accused and his witnesses during the investigation under Section 202, Cr.P.C.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) BANCHHANIDHI Maharatha (Petitioner) filed a complaint on 25-11-64 under sections 147 and 379. I. P. C. against Srinibash Paikroy (opp. party-1) and 17 others alleging that at about 6 A. M. on 28-11-64 they cut away the paddy which ho grew on the disputed land, Petitioner's case is that he looked after the properties of Orami Math in village Orami in Khurda Sub-division and cultivated the lands of the said Math On the date of occurrence, while he was absent from the village, opposite party No. 1 with the help of a large number of persons forcibly cut away the paddy. The complainant was examined on oath under Section 200, Cr. P. C. on 27-11-64 The complaint petition was sent to the officer in charge, Khurda Police Station for enquiry and report under Section 202. Cr. P. C. The Officer-in-charge examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant and some of the accused persons. He perused a registered sale deed executed by one luxmipriya Debi on 28-10-64 in favour of opposite party No. 1 The Officer-incharge submitted a report on 28 4-66 after giving notice to the accused. The report was to the following effect.

"srinibas Paikroy has purchased the alleged plots of land on 28-10-64 and thereafter he took the paddy shicves from the spot, but the complainant claims that he was in physical possession of the lauds in question. Hence I submit F. R. M. L. under Sections 148/379 I. P. C after closing up the investigation of the case. "

On 29-4-65 the complainant filed a protest petition alleging that the report submitted by the Officer-in-charge was contrary to the statements of the witness recorded by him which disclosed a prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 147 and 379, T. P. C. He made a prayer that after perusal of the case Diary, the police should be directed to submit a charge sheet On 10-7-65 the learned Magistrate passed the following order perused the Final Report and case diary of the police to whom the case was sent to investigate and to submit final form. The investigating officer has submitted final Report on the ground that the case is of a civil nature his finding is that the land in question on which the paddy stood, was purchased by accused Srinivas (A-1) on 28-10-64 with standing paddy crop from one lakshmipriya Dasi of Orami Math by a regd. sale deed and that on the strength of that sale deed this accused cut and removed paddy. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by police is correct and i have got nothing to interfere. So the protest petition is dismissed. Against this order the criminal revision has been filed, it is clear that the Magistrate has not passed any specific order that the complaint petition was dismissed under Section 203. Ori. P. C. But his order dated 10-7-65 dismissing the protest petition and saying that the conclusion arrived at by police is correct, amounts, in essence, to dismissal of the complaint petition.

( 2 ) MR. Ray advances the following contentions

(i) In dismissing the complaint, the Magistrate has mechanically followed the conclusion of the police in derogation to the principle laid down in section 203, Cr. P. C. (ii) The police acted contrary to law in examining opposite party No. 1 and his oral and documentary evidence to sec if there was A prima facie case.

( 3 ) MR. Misra raised a preliminary objection that if a complaint is dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. , it is open to the complainant to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 436, Cr. P. C. whereunder he has the power to direct further inquiry and give complete relief to the complainant. Without initially invoking the powers of the Sessions Judge, it was not open to the complainant to invoke the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court. Mr. Ray combats the preliminary objection on the ground that the jurisdiction under Section 436 is concurrent and a party can approach the High Court without approaching the Sessions Judge. The prohibition, if any,