' This revision under section 435, Cr. P. C. Calls into question the order, dated 8.10-1983, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he accepted the petition filed by Thekedar Nazir Hussain respondent.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that Thekedar Nazir Ahmed filed a complaint under section 500/506, P. P. C., against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and recording preliminary evidence of three P. Ws. Referred the complaint to the S. H. O. Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad for inquiry under section 202, Cr.
P. C.
The respondent filed a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate challenging its legality.
He contended that the learned Magistrate had option either to have inquired into the case himself or could have directed inquiry or investigation to be made by the Police Officer or by such other person thought fit for the purpose to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaint and since the learned Magistrate had himself inquired into the case, be should not have referred the case to the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the respondent and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with law. The petitioner against whom the above-mentioned complaint was filed has come up in revision before this Court challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The language of section 202, Cr. P. C. Is very clear and admits of no ambiguity. Under section 202, Cr. P. C,., Magistrate has the option of only one of the two alternatives either to inquire into the case himself or to direct an investigation. He cannot have recourse to both alternatives. After examining the complainant and recording the entire preliminary evidence of the complainant there was no occasion for him to direct further investigation by the police. The police would have also done the same thing. The learned Magistrate could have dismissse d the complaint if he was not satisfied about the genuineness of the allegations levelled in the complaint but could not have shelved the matter in this manner. The petitioner who has not yet been summoned by the Court to face trial should not have any grievance against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is not understandable as to why he is interested that there should be a police investigation into the allegations levelled against him.
' Finding absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I dismiss the revision in limine. a.Oraarm....