George Knox, J.
1. One Musammat Janki had made over custody of certain valuables to a man named Parbhu Lal. This much is admitted by Parbhu Lal, although he says that he had not that amount of the valuables which Musammat Janki says she made over to him. Musammat Janki in the first instance went to Babu Sohan Lal and apparently instituted a criminal complaint in his Court against Parbhu Lal. The record of that case is not before me; but an order has been produced in the case which simply says that with reference to certain Police papers Janki's complaint is ordered to be filed. She then went to the Court of Babu Sham Lal, a Magistrate of the second class, a few days after. There is a certified copy of an order passed in the case, which is to the effect that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence, that on her own admission she deposited ornaments with the accused and the accused lost them in a theft at his house. Her case seems to be one for Civil Courts as no breach of trust seems to be intended. The complaint is dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. For the third time Musammat Janki went to the Court of Babu Sohan Lal, Magistrate of the first class. Whether it was the same Sohan Lal who dealt with the case in the first instance does not appear. He too dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. He says that 'two witnesses have been produced only to show that the complainant placed her valuables in the custody of her master Parbhu Lal. Whether or not they were returned to the custody of himself is not known, even if these doubtful witnesses were fully believed Besides the Police who had already fully inquired into the matter certainly did not find that Parbhu Lal's house was not robbed. It seems true that the complainant's property was taken away by the thieves and she now wants it back from her master. I do not think a case of criminal misappropriation is made out. The complaint seems groundless and is dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant might go to Civil Court.' As to the complaint which she preferred to the District Magistrate of Aligarh after Sohan Lal had dismissed her complaint, it would appear that she out of Court tried to interview the District Magistrate and followed up her attempt by a complaint instituted before him. The Magistrate in an order dated 12th September 1916 sets aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint and directs that a warrant under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, with reasonable bail be issued against Parbhu Lal. It is from this order of 12th September that the present application has been made, and it is contended that the learned District Magistrate has not shown in his order any legal ground which would justify further inquiry and that in face of the circumstances under which the complaints on the same facts had been dismissed, he did not exercise a proper discretion in the matter. I have always felt considerable difficulty in dealing with applications of this kind. I know that different High Courts take different views on the question but there is the Full Bench decision of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Chotu 9 A. 52 : A. W.N. (1886) 281 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 465 in which it was held that when a Magistrate had discharged an accused person under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to hold further inquiry himself or direct further inquiry by a Subordinate Magistrate. So far as I know this decision has not been departed from in this Court. The Full Bench which arrived at that decision was a Full Bench of the whole Court, and the Judges who pronounced the decision were Judges of great experience, especially in criminal matters. I understand that this position is not contested by the learned Counsel who appears for Parbhu Lal. If a Magistrate has jurisdiction to hold further Inquiry in such a case, 1 do not think that his discretion should be interfered with except on very strong grounds. I cannot say that I find in this case that the Magistrate who dealt with the case went at all fully into the matter, and the impression left upon my mind is that whether Musammat Janki's complaint is true or false, on that point I pronounce no decision whatever, she has not had a full opportunity to proving her case in the Courts below. The first Court which dealt with it evidently looked into the matter through Police spectacles. The order passed by the second Court, namely, Babu Sham Lal, is also a very summary order. It undoubtedly was the case that the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence before him. At the same time I do not think it was a case which he should have dealt with under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. There was no doubt that ornaments belonging to Musammat Janki had been deposited with Parbhu Lal; but the facts stated in her complaint were facts on which a summons should, in my opinion, have been ordered. The third order, namely, that passed by Babu Sohan Lal on the 5th of September 1916, bears internal evidence of carelessness and want of proper apprehension of the case. He too seems to have been led away by the Police report; and all that he says is that he does not think that a case of criminal misappropriation has been made out, and that the complaint seems groundless. He evidently wished to throw off the responsibility on to a Civil Court. Under these circumstances I am prepared to uphold the District Magistrate's order which was within his jurisdiction. But the Court to which the case goes for trial should warn Musammat Janki in most clear terms of the danger of instituting a false came. Provided that is done and she incurs the risk, I think she is entitled to a full trial of the case which she puts against Parbhu Lal. Parbhu Lal was never summoned and as far as the record shows has not been in any way inconvenienced by the previous attempts of Musammat Janki to get her case heard. He can recompense himself if the case after proper trial is found to be a false one. The application is dismissed.