A magistrate can only rely on evidence collected during an inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code to determine the sufficiency for proceeding with a complaint.

1. A short question raised for consideration is as to what is the scope of enquiry under S. 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on what materials, the Magistrate has to base his order for dismissal of complaint under S. 203 CrPC?

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein filed a criminal complaint under S.436/34 IPC against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur. This complaint was filed on 20-11-2004. The allegations in the complaint are that on 11-4-2004 at about 3 p.m., all the accused persons (respondents herein), in furtherance of their common intention, came to the Badi of the complainant and caused mischief by putting fire to the straw of paddy (Puwal) of the complainant, thereby causing damage to the said property. The further allegations are that a portion of verandah was also burnt due to the said act. In support of the aforesaid complaint case, the complainant examined himself as witness No. 1 and thereafter he examined three more witnesses namely Nanu Prasad Kashyap, witness No. 2, Kunti Bai, witness No.3 and Bhagwat, witness No.4. Out of these 4 witnesses, Kunti Bai was examined as an eye - witness, who deposed that she saw the respondents putting fire to the said straw of the complaint.

3. The learned Magistrate also called for a report from the concerned Police Station. The police report was submitted on 3-12-2004. In the police report, it is stated that on the first information report lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 70/2004 was registered under S. 436/34 of the IPC and was taken into investigation. During the course of investigation, the stattements of Pekulal Kashyap,. Amavat Kashyap, Smt. Kunti Bai (witness No.3), Sitaram Kashyap and Smt. Bedia Bai etc. were recorded and since nobody came forward to depose that the mischief was caused by the proposed accused persons, therefore, a final report was attached to the F. I. R. It is also mentioned in the police report that none of the witnesses stated that they had seen the accused persons putting the said straw (Puwal) on fire.

4. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments, dismissed the aforesaid complaint on the ground that during the course of police investigation, the present eye witness namely Kunti Bai had not stated that she had seen the accused persons putting the straw on fire, therefore, prima facie there appears to be no reason to register a case against the accused persons and to issue a process against them and in this manner he dismissed the complaint on 4-4 - 2005. Against the aforesaid order, a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner before the revisional Court and the revisional Court also dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate. It is in this manner, the present petition under S. 482 CrPC has been filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the point that the Magistrate was not competent to look into the contents of the earlier investigation of the Police for the purposes of testing the veracity of the eyewitness particularly in the circumstance when the witness is saying that she was not at all examined by the police during the course of investigation of the aforesaid crime No. 70/2004. He raised the point that the aforesaid action taken by the Magistrate was beyond his jurisdiction and also beyond the scope of enquiry under S.202 (1) CrPC and the conclusion arrived at on the basis of such enquiry vitiates and the order of dismissal of the