P.S. Safeer, J.
(1) This petition is in consequence of a recommendation made by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi.Addl. Sessions Judge. Delhi in exercise of the power given by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called the Code,'
(2) The petitioner frled a complaint dated the 20th May, 1972. against six persons. After having recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him the trial court purporting to act under sections 203/204 of the Code passed the following order on the 6th of June, 1972 :- 'Complainant present in person with counsel. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and also after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by him at this stage. I am of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Smi. Snakuntla, Mangander Singh and Bodh Raj under section 498 read with 34 lPC Accordingly these three accused persons be summoned for the next date on payment of P.F.C. fixed for appearance on 7th July, 1972' Section 20 of the Code and section 204 (I 1 therein, are :- 'S. 203. The Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, may dismiss the Compkaunt if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or inquiry (if' any) under section 202, there is in his judgment no sutficient ground for proceeding. In such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing, S. 204(1). If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cogaizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be one in which according to the fourth column of the second schedule, a summons should issue in the first instance he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused. If the case appears to be one in which, according to to that column, a warrant should issue in the first instance, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain tims before sush Magistrate or (if tie has not jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.'
(3) Whenever Mag istrate after considering the statement on oath, I if any, of the complainant and the statements of his witnesses and the result of investigation or inquiry, if any, made under section 202 of the Code finds that there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint'he can dismiss the same but the imperative requirment is that he Shall briefly record his reasons for doing 80.
(4) Where a complaint is preferred against several persons and the order passed amounts to the dismissal thereof against some of Them it must contain brief roasons for not proceeding against such of th3 aacused persons against whom no order is passed under section 204(1) or the Code. Where a complaint is brought alleging that several offences have been committed by the accused persons and the Magistrate finds sufficient grounds for proceedings against all of them or some of them in respect of some of the offences, his order will amount to a dismissal of the complaint against such persons in respect of other offences. In that case, aslo the provisions of section 203 of the Code will come into play and the Magistrate will have to state brief reasons as to why he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons for the offences for which no action is initiated against them.
(5) The Migistrate can pass a composite order which may be covered both by sections 203 and 204 of the Code. A consideration of the opening part of section 204 of the Code persuades me that for proceeding. against any accused person the Magistrate must make manifest in his order the sufficient grounds which may have led to his opinion that the proceedings should be initiated. Law dees not warrant any arbitrary order under either of the two provisions. Arbitrariness would be the incident of a non-judicial approach.
(6) The impugned order made on the 6th of June, 1972 docs not attend to the obligation imposed by section 203 and 204 of the Code. The learned Magistrate dealing with ihe complaint is directed to attend to the requirements of the atore-quoted provisions and to pass an appropriate order. The complainant and the accused already summoned will attend before the Magistrate on the 16th of April, 1973, the date already fixed.
(7) With these observations, the petition is disposed of.