Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 6th July, 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Siliguri in case No. 202 of 2002, the petitioner who happens to be the complainant and succeeded In obtaining process against her husband has moved this application on the ground that the learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind turned down" prayer for issuance of process in respect of her in laws. It has b canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that firstly no reason was accorded by the learned Magistrate for dismissal and, secondly, although the petition complaint contains averments against the said persons, the learn Magistrate did not properly advert to the same correctly.
(2.) Having heard the submissions of Mr. Banerjee for the petition and considering the materials transpiring from the petition of complaint firstly it appears that there is substance so far as regard to the question averment is concerned against other persons less it may influence them of the learned Trial Court, it is suffice to say that the petition of complaint is inter-linked with the tapestry of allegations against other persons who has been summoned. That way the learned Magistrate was wrong.
(3.) Secondly, the order of refusal of process amounting to dismissal complaint against the said persons has to be one under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and within the ambit of the said statute. It should contain reasons to justify an order in that respect. Unfortunately there is no compliance with regard to the said statutory provision under Section 203 of die Code of Criminal Procedure which postulates that the learned Magistrate dismissing a complaint against a person shouldgive brief reasons.;