1. The facts of this case are that on the 6th of July 1915 Musammat Sukhdei Koer filed a suit against Rai Mohamaya Prasad Singh Bahadur and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga for the recovery of 22 lacs of rupees, and on the 9th of July asked that the defendants might be ordered to produce in Court their khesra and lekha bahis for the years 1311, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319 and 1320 F.S. and certain other papers. In January 1916 the defendant, Rai Mohamaya Prasad Singh Bahadur, filed a petition before the District Magistrate of Darbhanga, saying that he had no certain knowledge of the facts but had heard that the plaintiffs had taken steps to abstract from the Court of the Munsif, where a number of papers had been filed in a previous suit, papers in connection with the present suit and had employed Kripa Ram and others to introduce by forgery entries therein, which would support their (the plaintiffs') case. He did not ask the Magistrate to take any action in the way of summons or the issue of warrants against the accused, but desired only that a confidential enquiry be made by the Criminal Investigation Department. The Magistrate passed orders that such an enquiry should be made and as a result of that enquiry issued warrants against Kripa Ram and others under the forgery sections. The matter was brought before this Court during the vacation and the vacation Judge, without going into the merits of the case or the legal points involved, directed that the matter should stand over till after the suit had been decided in the Subordinate Judge's Court. That suit has now been decided and the District Magistrate has without further enquiry ordered that the proceedings against Kripa Ram be continued. Kripa Ram himself does not make any application to this Court, but the other two accused Jhuna Lal and Balmakund Das apply to hate the proceedings quashed on the ground that they have no legal basis. In support of this contention a series of cases has been quoted: Thakur Pershad Singh v. Emperor 10 C.W.N. 775 : 3 Cr.L.J. 473, Thakur Prosad Singh v. Emperor 10 C.W.N. 1090 : 4 Cr.L.J. 217 and Chamru Sahu v. Emperor  11 C.W.N. 170 : 5 Cr.L.J. 13, as authority for the proposition that where a Magistrate purports to act under section 190, clause 1, sub-clause (c), it is required that the source from which the information was derived be recorded and the statement of the informant reduced to writing. We do not think the cases quoted have any application to the case before us. But we are in entire sympathy with the views of Phear, J., as expressed in the case of Queen v. Surrendra Nath Roy  13 W.R. Cr. 27 : 5 B.L.R. 274. The power of the Magistrate to proceed upon information is intended to be used in a case in which a Magistrate has good reason to believe that there has been a serious infringement of the law but is unable to take action in the ordinary manner for the reason that the party aggrieved is unwilling or unable to prosecute.

2. The informant in the case before us was a Rai Bahadur. He was obviously willing to prosecute and able to prosecute if indeed any criminal offence had been committed. He was unwilling to lodge a first information at the thana. He preferred to make a definite complaint before the District Magistrate on an eight anna stamp. That complaint contained a distinct assertion that an offence had been committed, and definitely accused Kripa Ram as the principal, offender. It was without doubt a complaint within the meaning of section 190(1)(a). The Magistrate was required under section 260 to immediately examine the complainant on oath. The Magistrate may have been light in ordering an enquiry by the Criminal Investigation Department. But upon receipt of the result of this enquiry the Magistrate should either have called upon the Rai Bahadur to lodge a further complaint and examine him on oath or should have directed the officer of the Criminal Investigation Department to file a complaint. If the report of the Police Officer is correct, a serious crime has been committed. But as we read section 190(1)(c), it is not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance upon the report of any Police Officer under that clause and as we have indicated, it was not open to him to take cognizance on the complaint of the Rai Bahadur without examining him on oath. The proceedings directing the prosecution of the petitioners before us must be regarded as so irregular as to be likely in the event of the commitment of the accused to the Court of Session to result in his commitment being quashed. We, therefore, set them aside at this stage.

3. If, having regard to the serious nature of the offence alleged, the District Magistrate feels it his duty to proceed further, it is open to him to receive a new complaint either from the Rai Bahadur or from the Police who conducted this investigation. The complainant will then be examined on oath under section 200 and upon the result of his inspection of the Police Officer's report and a consideration of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the case between the parties, the Magistrate will take such action as he may think necessary under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code.