Stewart Macpherson, J.

1. The petitioner Parmanand Brahmachari is under trial for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of the Sub-Inspector in charge of the Motihari Police Station with whom he lodged a First Information on the 29th May last. On the 7th June the Sub-Inspector reported that the whole case was maliciously false and preferred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate a complaint against the petitioner of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate gave the petitioner an opportunity to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and to prove his case. The petitioner on the 27th June filed a petition showing cause and impugning the Police report and on the 21st July examined a medical witness. On that date the Magistrate who was apparently inclined to summon the accused since he remarked that the Police had much evidence against him took time to peruse the Police records and eventually passed orders on the 18th August summoning the petitioner under Section 211. In the interval the latter had on the 27th July presented a petition dealing with points of law but also asking that what he called his complaint be finally disposed of before process was ordered to issue on him on the complaint of the Sub-Inspector.

2. In support of the Rule issued on the application of the petitioner to quash the proceedings and to order that he be given an opportunity to prove his case, reference is made on his behalf mainly to the case of Daroga Gope v. Emperor 88 Ind. Cas. 1045 : 5 Pat. 33 : 6 P.L.T. 515; A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 747 : 26 Cr. L.J. 1269 : AIR(1926) Pat. 108 and it is contended that the offence of laying a false information before the Sub-Inspector on the 29th May has been committed "in relation to" the offence of instituting on the 27th June a false case by a complaint in the form of a petition impugning the Police report on his First Information, within the meaning of the words "in relation to" in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But a consideration of the case cited shows, as will presently appear, that the facts are distinguishable.

MISSING TIFF PAGE NO. 0047

least as he confines himself to the simple question of issue of process or dismissal of the complaint). The provision is enabling and not obligatory as soon as he has satisfied himself that process should issue, its object is fulfilled and it is certainly not incumbent upon him or ordinarily expedient that he should practically enter upon a trial of the case. In the present instance the Magistrate was satisfied upon the material placed before him by the prosecution of the truth of the complaint in spite of the submissions and evidence adduced by the accused and was, therefore, warranted in issuing process, even though accused may have had further evidence which he could adduce. This Court moreover will not ordinarily interfere with the details of an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 and particularly will not do so on the ground that it was inadequate.

3. As to the argument that when the Magistrate had before him two competing complaints of which he had taken cognizance, he should have disposed of the complaint of the petitioner before issuing process upon the petitioner on the other though earlier complaint, it is based upon recollection of the decisions under the superseded provisions of the unamended Code. When there are competing complaints it is manifestly within the discretion of the Magistrate on a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case, to determine in which he should issue process first and not less BO when he has made an inquiry under Section 202 in one of them which necessarily involves also a consideration of the other.

4. The application is without merit and accordingly this Rule is discharged.