Asthana, J. - (1.) One Swami Ganga Nand filed a complaint under Sec. 392 and 323, I.P.C. against Chunnu alias Kedar Nath and Hira Lal. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence produced before him was of the opinion that none of the two offences had been established against the accused. He, therefore, discharged them. Against this order a revision was filed before the learned District Magistrate of Dehra Dun. He was of the opinion that as a cross -case had been filed by one of the accused against the complainant and Tara Chand witness relating to the same incident under Sec. 325, I.P.C. there can be no doubt that the incident did happened though it had been exaggerated by the complainant Swami Ganga Nand. He therefore accepted the revision, set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate and sent the complaint to be tried by the City Bench B as a cross -case filed by Kedar Nath accused. He further directed that the complaint could be only under Sec. 323, I.P.C. and not under Sec. 392, I.P.C. Against this order a revision has been filed by Kedar Nath and Hira Lal. Sri Janardan Sarup Gupta Advocate, who filed the revision has appeared before me and has stated that he has no instructions in the case.
(2.) I have, however, heard the learned Assistant Government Advocate and Sri K.N. Seth on behalf of the opposite patty. In my opinion the order of the learned District Magistrate does not appear to be corrected Sec. 436, Cr.P.C. provides that on examining any record under Sec. 435 or otherwise, he District Magistrate may himself make or direct any Subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Sec. 203 or sub -section (3) of Sec. 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. It will be clear from the above Sec. that the District Magistrate is empowered to direct further inquiry into the entire complaint and not in respect of a portion of it, what the learned District Magistrate has done in this case is that he has accepted the finding of the learned Magistrate with regard to the offence under Sec. 392, I.P.C. but not with regard to the offence under Sec. 323, I.P.C. I do not think that he could do so. Is he was of the opinion that a further inquiry was necessary into the case he should have sent the entire case for the purpose and not a portion. Moreover, the order of the learned District Magistrate does not appear to be correct on the merits also. The complainant examined two witnesses in support of the complaint and none of them supported the case. In the circumstances the learned Magistrate was perfectly correct in holding that the case had not been established against the accused. I do not think that it makes any difference simply because a cross -case relating to the same incident had been filed by the accused. It may be that the version of the accused in the cross -case might be correct.
(3.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the learned District Magistrate cannot be maintained. Accordingly I allow this application and set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate dated the 24th February, 19(sic)3, directing further inquiry with respect to the offence under Sec. 323, I.P.C.;