# STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES - **Citation:** [2017] 14 S.C.R. 163 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2017-08-18 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos.1427-1428 of2017 - **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-goa-v-jose-maria-albert-vales-robert-vales-31957 - **Pages:** 39 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.244, 340 and 343 - Statement of respondent, a prose.cution witness, reco_rded u/s.164, Cr.P. C by Magistrate - While testifying in the Session's trial, respondent resiled from. this statement- Sessions Court being prima facie of the view that the respondent deliberately made contradictory statements on oath in order to screen/favour the accused in the session's trial, without conducting any inquiry as permissible u/ s. 340, directed respondent's prosecution by filing complaint against A B c him uls..193,JPC - Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the D respondent uls.193,JPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate - . In the proceedings, prosecution examined three witnesses from the list apart from the complainant-Sessions Judge - Thereafter, Magistrate framed charges against the respondent uls.193,IPC - Application by respondent before Magistrate for dropping· of the E proceedings against him, rejected - Revision before Court of Sessions also rejected - High Court quashed the charges against the respondent holding it to be premature and in violation of procedure prescribed uls.244,Cr.P.C. - According to High Court F the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case otherwise than on polite report to which warrant procedure was applicable, thus, charge could not have been framed against respondent as the prosecution had not adduced all its evidence at that_ stage, as required u/s.244,Cr.P.C - Plea of appellant-State before Supreme Court that in terms of s.343,Cr.P.C the case though registered on a complaint u/s.340 was to be dealt with as if instituted on a police G report, for which the rigour of the procedure u/s.244,Cr.PC was inapplicable - Held: Approach of High Court is. wholly indefensible, as uls. 343(1 ), Cr.P. C the procedure prescribedfor cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint u/ s.340, Cr.P. C. - impugned judgment of High Court is unsustainableTrial Magistrate to proceed from the stage of framing of charge, H 163 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A strictly in compliance of s.343(1),CrPC- Penal Code; 1860- s.193Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s.476. Words & Phrases - "Complaint", "inquiry", "investigation", "police report", "summons-case" and "warrant-case "~Meaning of - Explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2(d), 2(g), B 2(h), 2(r), 2(w) and 2(x). Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - 'Inquiry' and 'Investigation' - Difference between - Discussed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195 - Offences u/Cl.(a) and (b) -· Cognizance of - Conditions for - Held: Vis-a-vis the c offences enumerated in clause (a), cognizance is permissible only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate- For offences in clause (b), a complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer of the Court, as that Court may authorise in writing or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate D is an imperative precondition. E Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.195- Offences under Cl.(a) & (b)- Summons cases or warrant case- Held:Having regard to the punishments prescribed therefor, the offences detailed in clauses (a) and (b), give rise to "summons" as well "warrant-cases". Penal Code, 1860 - s.193 - Offence under - Summons case or warrant case '- Held: An offen<:r{.'uls.193 would constitute a . . . . ; . ,., . warrant case. Code of Crimina(P;ocedure, 1973- Chapter XIX- ss.238243, ss. 244-247- Trial of warrant cases by Magistrate in cases F instituted on a police report and in cases instituted otherwise than on police report - Procedure adopted for - Distinction between - · Held: The distinction lies in the fact that whereas in the former, there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at the stage where the Magistrate is to consider whether a charge is to be G framed or not, in cases instituted otherwise than on a pol ## Text _Characters 0–39,967 of 97,101. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39967 for what follows._ [2017] 14 S.C.R. 163 STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES (Criminal Appeal Nos.1427-1428 of2017) AUGUST 18, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.244, 340 and 343 - Statement of respondent, a prose.cution witness, reco_rded u/s.164, Cr.P. C by Magistrate - While testifying in the Session's trial, respondent resiled from. this statement- Sessions Court being prima facie of the view that the respondent deliberately made contradictory statements on oath in order to screen/favour the accused in the session's trial, without conducting any inquiry as permissible u/ s. 340, directed respondent's prosecution by filing complaint against A B c him uls..193,JPC - Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the D respondent uls.193,JPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate - . In the proceedings, prosecution examined three witnesses from the list apart from the complainant-Sessions Judge - Thereafter, Magistrate framed charges against the respondent uls.193,IPC - Application by respondent before Magistrate for dropping· of the E proceedings against him, rejected - Revision before Court of Sessions also rejected - High Court quashed the charges against the respondent holding it to be premature and in violation of procedure prescribed uls.244,Cr.P.C. - According to High Court F the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case otherwise than on polite report to which warrant procedure was applicable, thus, charge could not have been framed against respondent as the prosecution had not adduced all its evidence at that_ stage, as required u/s.244,Cr.P.C - Plea of appellant-State before Supreme Court that in terms of s.343,Cr.P.C the case though registered on a complaint u/s.340 was to be dealt with as if instituted on a police G report, for which the rigour of the procedure u/s.244,Cr.PC was inapplicable - Held: Approach of High Court is. wholly indefensible, as uls. 343(1 ), Cr.P. C the procedure prescribedfor cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint u/ s.340, Cr.P. C. - impugned judgment of High Court is unsustainableTrial Magistrate to proceed from the stage of framing of charge, H 163 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A strictly in compliance of s.343(1),CrPC- Penal Code; 1860- s.193Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s.476. Words & Phrases - "Complaint", "inquiry", "investigation", "police report", "summons-case" and "warrant-case "~Meaning of - Explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2(d), 2(g), B 2(h), 2(r), 2(w) and 2(x). Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - 'Inquiry' and 'Investigation' - Difference between - Discussed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195 - Offences u/Cl.(a) and (b) -· Cognizance of - Conditions for - Held: Vis-a-vis the c offences enumerated in clause (a), cognizance is permissible only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate- For offences in clause (b), a complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer of the Court, as that Court may authorise in writing or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate D is an imperative precondition. E Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.195- Offences under Cl.(a) & (b)- Summons cases or warrant case- Held:Having regard to the punishments prescribed therefor, the offences detailed in clauses (a) and (b), give rise to "summons" as well "warrant-cases". Penal Code, 1860 - s.193 - Offence under - Summons case or warrant case '- Held: An offen<:r{.'uls.193 would constitute a . . . . ; . ,., . warrant case. Code of Crimina(P;ocedure, 1973- Chapter XIX- ss.238243, ss. 244-247- Trial of warrant cases by Magistrate in cases F instituted on a police report and in cases instituted otherwise than on police report - Procedure adopted for - Distinction between - · Held: The distinction lies in the fact that whereas in the former, there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at the stage where the Magistrate is to consider whether a charge is to be G framed or not, in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the prosecution is required to adduce all such evidence in support of his case. H Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXVI - s.340 - Complaint under - Two essential pre-requisites for - Explained. STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 165 VALES Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973,.... s.340 - Enquiry under - A Scope of - Held: Scope of scrutiny 'u/s.340 .is to decide whether on the materials available the matter requires. inquiry by a criminal court and whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to have an inquiry into the offence affecting administration of justice. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.343 - Procedure to be B adopted by the Magistrate taking cognizance - Discussed. Words & Phrases - "as far as may be" - Meaning of - Code of Cri17Jinal Procedure, 1973 - s.343(1). Allowing the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1.1 A "complaint" is an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to take action under CrPC against some person, known or unknown, who had committed an offence and does. not i~lude a police report. In contradistinction, "police report" means i:report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section l73(2), CrPC ~hereas "warrant case" D is one relatable to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment . for life or punishment for a t11rm eif eeding two Y.ears, a "summonscase" is one qua an· offence which is not a "war~ant-case". A clear cut distinction, therefore, has been ordained by ~e CrPC between a "complaint" and a "police report" as well as a. "warrant-case" E and a "summons-case". [Para 14) [179-A-C) 1.2 Notably, "inquiry" means every inquiry other than a trial conductedunder the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate or Court. Distinguished from "inguiry", which is to be undertaken by a Magistrate or a Court, as prescribed, "investigation" includes all proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate), who is authorized by a Magistrate in that regard. [Para 15) [179-C-D) F 2. Sectio~ 195 CrPC deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public .G justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Sub-section (1) thereof, which is relevant for the present pursuit, clamps an embargo on the cognizance by any court of any offence, as mentioned therein, in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Whereas, vis-a-vis the offences enumerated in clause (a), such cognizance H 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A is permissible only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, in re offences cataglogued in clause (b), a complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer of the Court, as that Court may authorise in writing or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, is an imperative B precondition. The offences detailed in clauses (a) and (b), having regard to the punishments prescribed therefor, give rise to "summons" as well "warrant-cases". An offence under Section 193 IPC however would constitute a warrant case. [Paras 16, 17) [l 79~E-F; 180-G-H) c 3. A cumulative review of the provisions pertaining to the cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate on a complaint would evince that a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, even after the examination of the complainant and the witnesses present, at the time of taking cognizance may postpone the issuance of process, if he construes D it to be fit to either cause an inquiry to be made by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person, as he thinks fit, for being satisfied as to whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. A Magistrate, however, need not examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a pubic servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of E his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. There is however no restraint on him to cause an inquiry to be made by himself even on such a complaint for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This F allowance is assuredly to secure the ends of justice and to avoid/ obviate 1~ven the remotest possibility of any avoidable prosecution. [Para 23) [181-G-H; 182-A-B) 4.1 Chapter XIX is devoted to trial of warrant cases by Magistrate and enfolds two categories i.e. A -cases instituted on a police report and B- cases instituted otherwise than on a police G report. In the former category i;e. cases instituted on a police report, the successive stages comprehended after the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, have been detailed. These are accommodated in Sections 238 to 243. With regard to cases instituted otherwise than on police report, the procedure is outlined in Sections H 244 to 247 of CrPC. [Paras 24, 27) [182-C; 183-E-F] STAIE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 167 VALES 4.2 The strikingly. distinguishable feature in the procedures A to be adopted for cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on a police report, lies in the fact that whereas in .the former, there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at the stage where the Magistrate is to consider whether a charge is to be framed or not, in cases B instituted othenvise than on a police report, after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the prosecution is required to adduce all such evidence in support of his cas_~, whereupon the Magistrate may discharge ttie accuse.d, if he is of the view, for reasons to be recorded on the basis of such evidence, that no case had been made out against him, which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. However, if the Magistrate is of c the opinion, in view of such evide.nce, or also at any previous stage of the case, that there is ground. for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under the Chapter and which he is competent to try and adequately punish, he shall D frame a charge against the accused. Subsequent thereto, if the accused refuses to plead guilty or does not plead so or claims· to be tried, vis-a-vis the charge, he would be offered an opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution, whose evidence had been taken and on which the charge is founded and if the accused elects to avail this opportunity, the witnesses named by him would be recalled and after cross-examination and reexamination, they shall be discharged. Thus, not only the prosecution, in the cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, would have an opportunity to adduce all such evidence in support of its case on which, on a consideration whereof, the accused may be charged or discharged, as the case may be, the latter can avail the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses only after the charge is framed. As Section 246(6) would authenticate, the prosecution woul.d thereafter have another chance of examining the remaining witnesses, who understandably, E F if examined, would be subjected to cross-examination and re- · G examination before their discharge. [Para 28) (184-F-H; 185-AC) 4.3 Chapter XX deals with trial of summons-cases by the Magistrates in which, after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A is accused, shall be stated to him and he would be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it would not be necessary to frame a formal charge. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate would record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by him and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. B If however, the Magistrate does not convict the accused, he shall nroceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also hear the accused and take all such evidence as he would produce in his defence and record acquittal or conviction, as the case may be. [Para 291 [185-D-F) c 5.1 Chapter XXVI pertaining to "Provisions as to offences affecting the administration of justice", is the center piece of scrutiny. As per Section 340, CrPC, captioned as "Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195", when upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it D is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or as the case may be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such preliminary E enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary: (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; ( d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the nccused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court F thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. [Para 30) [185-G-H; 186-A-C) 5.2 This power in the eventualities, as enumerated in subsection (2), can be exercised by the Court to which the former G Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195(4). Subsection (3) requires that such a complaint has to be signed by the authorities as mentioned therein. The two essential prerequisites, as predicated by this provision, are formation of an opinion (1) even ifprima facie, that an offence referred to Section 195(1)(b) appears to have been committed in or in relation to a H STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 169 VALES proceeding of the Court or as the case may be in respect of any A document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court and (2) it is expedient in the-interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into-such offence .. [P_ara 31) [186-D-E) 5.3 It is ~o longer res integra that the preiiminary enquir.y, as compr:ehended in Section 340, is not obligatory to be B undertaken by the Court before taking the initiatives as contained in clauses (a) to (e) while invoking its powers thereunder. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order either refusing to make a complaint or making a complaint under Section 340, whereupon the superior court may direct the making of the complaint or withdrawal thereof, as the case may be. Section 343 C delineates the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate taking cognizance. [Para 32) [186-F-G) 5.4 As sub-section (1) of Section 343 would unequivocally testify, a Magistrate _to whom a complaint is made under Section 340 or Section 341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in D Chapter XV of the Code i.e. the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint, proceed as far as may be to deal with the case as if it was instituted on a police report. [Para 33) [187-C-E) 5.5 At t!te stage of lodging of a complaint under Section E 340 Cr.P.C., the decisive consideration is the satisfaction derived by the Complaining Court that it was expedient in the interests of justice ·that an inquiry ought to be made by a Criminal Court into an offence which otherwise appeared to have been committed in connection with the proceedings before it and affecting the F administration of justice. The language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. does not make it imperative for a Court to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice" which demonstrate that such a course would be adopted only if in G the interests of justice, it is required and not otherwise. (Paras 35, 36) [188-A, B-C, D-E) 5.6 In an inquiry held by the Court under Section 340(1), Cr PC irrespective of the result .of the main case, the only question is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, H · 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interests of justice to take such action. Further, at the trial, the reasons recorded in the order under Section 340(1) should not weigh with the Criminal Court in coming to its independent conclusion whether the B offence, as alleged, has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt and it would be for the prosecution to establish all the ingredients of such offence and the decision would be based only on the evidence produced before the Criminal Court during the trial and its conclusion would be independent of the opinion formed by the complaining court under Section 340(1). [Para 37) [188C G-H; 189-A-C) 5. 7 The hub of Section 340 is the formation of an opinion by the Court, before which the proceedings were pending prior to the complaint, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have D been committed. Though in order to form such an opinion, the Court was empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry, it was not obligatory to do so and even without such preliminary inquiry, the Court could form such an opinion. The Court, though, even after forming such an opinion was not obligated to make a complaint, but once it decides to do so, it has to make a finding to E the effect that in the fact situation, it is expedient in the interests of justice that the offence should be further probed into. Absence of any preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding if reached, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence which appears to have been committed. F The preliminary inquiry.contemplated was not for finding as to whether a particular person was guilty or not but only to decide as to whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed. At the stage of analysis under Section 340, CrPC for the above purpose, there was no legal obligation to afford an opportunity to the G persons against whom the complaint could eventually be made. [Paras 39, 42] [189-E-H; 190-A; 191-A-B) H 6.1 The salient features of the expression "as far as may be" engrafted in Section 343, the can be deciphered as: (i) a Magistrate dealing with a complaint under Section 340 or Section STATE.OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @.ROBERT 171 VALES 341 has to proceed as far as may be to deal with the case as if it A were instituted on a police report; (ii) this course the Magistrate would follow notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV. [Para 51) (195-G-H; 196-A] ~ · 6.2 Noticeably, the expression "as far as may be" assuredly lends some elasticity, relaxing the otherwise rigour of the B legislative mandate to deal with the complaint as a case instituted on a police report. It cannot be gainsaid that in absence of this. discernible flexibility, the Magistrate would be left with no option but to construe the complaint under Section 340 or Section 341 to bf a· case as if instituted on a police report, Section 343(1) thus clearly marks an exception qua the procedure to be adopted by C the Trial Magistrate if the complaint is filed under Section 340 or Section 341,CrPC. To reiterate, barring the perceptible flexibility as contained in the expression "as far as may be", the Magistrate is required to deal with the complaint as a case as if instituted on a police report. Section 343(1), CrPC enjoins the D Trial Magistrate to deal with the complaint under Section · 340 or Section 341 by treating it to be a case, as if instituted on a police report. There is indeed a deeming element ingrained in the provision. Further, the expression "as far as may be" does not foreclose wholly, at the same time the discretion of the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, to get additional E materials on record for his necessary satisfaction to proceed thereafter as required in law. This element of discretion conferred on the Trial Magistrate does not either suggest or encourage any irreverence to the complaining court and the legislative intent is to ensure against avertable judicial proceedings in the overall F interest of justice. The amendment, while secures an expeditious disposal of the complaint by treating it to be a case instituted on a police report as far as may be without undergoing the rigour of the elaborate procedure meant for a complaint case, has with the conferment of the discretion on the Trial Magistrate, as above provided the necessary balance to prevent even the remotest G possibility of a lame prosecution. [Paras 52, 55) [196-B-C; 197E-H; 198-A] . 7. Judged from the standpoint of interplay between Sections 340 and 343, CrPC, thus the following eventualities may arise: H 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A a) When a judicial complaint is based. on materials collected in the course of preliminary inquiry before the complaint under Section 340 is filed. This is a situation where in terms of Section 343, the Trial Magistrate shall straightway deal therewith as if it was instituted on a police report as per Chapter XIX-A of the B Code. b) Where the judicial complaint is not preceded by a preliminary inquiry and there is no material either by way of any statement or document and the Trial Magistrate genuinely feels in the cause of justice that even if there is a prima facie satisfaction of the complaining court that the offence mentioned appears to have C been committed, he can undertake a summary enquiry and on • the completion thereof, may decide on the complaint in accordance withla.w. · c) Where though no preliminary inquiry had been made before · filing of the judicial complaint, the facts are so clear and obvious D in endorsement of the prima facie satisfaction that the offence had been committed and that it is expedient in the interests of justice to have the same probed into further by the Trial Magistrate, the Trial Magistrate shall deal with the case as if it was instituted on a police report and follow the procedure under E Chapter XIX-A of the Code. [Para 54) [196-G-H; 197-A-D] 8.1 Reverting to the case in hand, the complaint was filed by the Trial Court stating that the respondent had committed an . offence under Section 193 IPC, he having resorted to falsehood on oath at the trial in order to screen the accused from the crime F and to enable him to escape punishment. The offence alleged is one included in -Section 195(1)(b), CrPC and is otherwise, having regard to the punishment prescribed, to which, warrant procedure would be applicable. In course of the arguments, it had transpired that the Trial Magistrate had examined the complainant and some other witnesses before framing charge against the respondent G under the above provision of law. The High Court by the order impugned however, had sustained the plea of the respondent that as the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case otherwise than on police report to which warrant procedure was applicable, charge could not have been framed as the prosecution H had not adduced all its evidence at that stage, as required ""' (.''' STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 173 VALES under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. Significantly, no challenge has · A been made to the legality and/or the validity of the order under Section 340 or the complaint on any ground. It has also not been asserted in the course of arguments that the evidence already recorded is not sufficient to frame a charge, as had been done by the Trial Magistrate. [Para 59) [200-D-H) 8.2 In view of the determination as above, the approach of B the High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341, CrPC. Even C assuming that the Trial Magistrate had examined few witnesses in support of the complaint, it was in the form of a summary inquiry, to be satisfied as to whether the materials on record would justify the framing of charge against the respondent or not and nothing further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial D imprimatur. The impugned judgment of the High Court in quashing . the charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the case to him to follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted · otherwise than on police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the face of it unsustainable in law and on facts. It is thus set asi