considering the complaint as well as the statement on oath, if the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding the complaint, he can dismiss the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C., but the Magistrate has no power to reject the complaint as not maintainable at the threshold itself. The petitioner further submits that he has made out a case for taking cognizance of the offence and he has filed documents and also ready to produce witnesses to make out a prima facie case for issuance of process. But the learned Magistrate, without considering that any ground is made out in the complaint for proceeding further, has rejected the complaint as not maintainable, which is not permissible under law. Apart from that the other reason stated by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the complaint as not maintainable and also not valid in the eye of law. Merely because the respondents are employees of the TANGEDCO, there is bar under the Criminal Procedure Code to maintain the complaint against them. But, the learned Magistrate has erroneously held that since TANGEDCO is a unit of Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, the complaint is not maintainable before him. The producing of witness for taking cognizance of the offence and issue process will arise only at the stage of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate without even conducting any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the materials, rejected the complaint at the threshold as not maintainable, for which, he has no power or jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has also referred to number of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
