http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: TULA RAM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHORE SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/10/1977

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2401            1978 SCR  (1) 615  1977 SCC  (4) 459  CITATOR INFO :  D          1980 SC1883  (8)  RF         1988 SC1729  (5)  F          1989 SC 885  (17)

ACT: Criminal  Procedure  Code (Act II of 1974),  1973,  sections 156(3), 190, 200, 202 and 204, scope and ambit of. Words and phrases-"Taking cognizance", meaning of.

HEADNOTE: A  criminal  case registered by the police  officer,  Police Station  Guru  Har  Sari, on the basis of  F.I.R.  filed  by Avinash  Chandra against Mohd.  Sadiq and others for  having caused  the murder of one Balbir Singh was committed to  the Court  of Sessions.  A cross objection was filed  before  in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepore  on 30th  December  1974 by the respondent  Kishore  Singh,  the brother  of the deceased Balbir Singh containing  a  counter version  of the occurrence mentioned in the case  registered by the police.  On receipt of the complaint, the  Magistrate ordered  the police to investigate the case u/s.  156(3)  of the  Criminal  Procedure Code by his order  dated  1-1-1975. The  police submitted a final report on 8-3-1975  indicating that  no case was made out against the accused.  The  court, after considering the report on 2nd April 1975, ordered that notice may be issued to the complainant to appear before him The  statement  of the complainant and  his  witnesses  were recorded on 22nd May 1975.  On 23rd May 1975, the Magistrate issued  process against the accused and summoned them  u/ss. 304/149  and  148 of the Indian Penal  Code.   The  accused- appellants  moved the High Court for quashing the  order  of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate having once ordered  investigation  u/s.  156(3) of  the  Code  was  not competent to revive the complaint and issue process  against the accused.  The High Court held that no case for  quashing the  order-of  the Magistrate was made out inasmuch  as  the Magistrate  had  issued process against  the  accused  after taking due cognizance of the case and applying his mind  and recording the statement of the complainant. Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court, HELD  :  (1) The action taken by the  Magistrate  was  fully supported  in  law  and  he did  not  commit  any  error  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter issuing process against the appellants. [623- D] (2)  The  following legal propositions emerge on  a  careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case :               (i)   That    a    Magistrate    can     order               investigation  u/s.  156(3) only at  the  pre-               cognizance  stage,  that  is  to  say,  before               taking  cognizance u/s. 190, 200 and  204  and               when  a Magistrate decides to take  cognizance               under the provisions of Chapter 14, he is  not               entitled  in  law to order  any  investigation               u/s.  156(3)  though.  in  cases  not  falling               within  the  proviso to s. 204, he  can  order               investigation by the police which would be  in               the  nature of any inquiry as contemplated  by               s. 202 of the Code.               (ii)  Where  a  Magistrate  chooses  to   take               cognizance, he can adopt any of the  following               alternatives :               (a)   He  can  peruse  the  complaint  and  if               satisfied  that there are  sufficient  grounds               for  proceeding  he  can  straightaway   issue               process to the accused but before he does  so,               he must comply with the requirements of s. 200               and record the evidence of the complainant  or               his witnesses;               (b)   The Magistrate ran postpone the issue of               process and direct an inquiry by himself;               616               (c)   The Magistrate can postpone the issue of               process  and  direct an inquiry by  any  other               person or an investigation by the police,               (iii) In case the Magistrate after considering               the  statement  of  the  complainant  and  the               witnesses as a result of investigation and the               inquiry  ordered is not satisfied  that  there               are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he  can               dismiss the complaint.               (iv)  Where a Magistrate orders  investigation               by  the police before taking  cognizance  u/s.               156(3)  of  the Code and receives  the  report               thereupon,  he  can  act  on  the  report  and               discharge  the accused or  straightaway  issue               process against the Accused or apply his  mind               to  the  complaint filed before him  and  take               action u/s. 190. The present case is clearly covered by proposition No. (iv). [623E-H, 624A-C] (3)  There is no special charm or any magical formula in the expression  "taking cognizance" which merely means  judicial application  of  the  mind of the Magistrate  to  the  facts mentioned  in  the complaint with a view to  taking  further action.   What  s. 190 contemplates is that  the  Magistrate takes  cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious  and aware  of the allegations made in the complaint and  decides to  examine  or test the validity of the  said  allegations. The court prescribes several modes in which a complaint  can be  disposed of after taking cognizance. While a  Magistrate can order the police to investigate the complaint it has  no power  to  compel the police to submit a charge-sheet  on  a final report being submitted by Magistrate can either  order reinvestigation  or  dispose of the complaint  according  to law. [619E-F, 620B] Abhinandan  Jha  & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3  SCR  668,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

reiterated. Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of West  Bengal [1960]  1  SCR  93 at 106; R. R. Chari  V.  State  of  Uttar Pradesh  [1951] SCR 312 and Superintendent and  Remembrancer of  Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar  Banerjee  AIR 1950 Cal. 437, referred to. (4)  Sections  190  and 156 (3) are mutually  exclusive  and work  in  totally different spheres.  The position  is  that even  if a Magistrate receives a complaint u/s 190,  he  can act  u/s  156(3) provided that he does not  take  cognizance Chapter  12  and Chapter 14 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code subserve  two different purposes; one pre-cognizance  action and  the  other post-cognizance action.   While  Chapter  14 containing s. 190 deals with post-cognizance stage,  Chapter 12,  so  far  as Magistrate is concerned,  deals  with  pre- cognizance  stage that is to say, once a  Magistrate  starts acting  u/s.  190 and the provisions  following,  he  cannot resort to s. 156(3). [620D-E, 622A] Devarpalli Lakshmnarayanan Reddy & Ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy JUDGMENT: v.  State of Assam & Anr AIR 1961 SC 986 and Jamuna Singh  & Ors. v. Bhadai  Sah [1964] SCR 37 at 41, referred to. (5)  The provisions of s. 202 of the Code debar a Magistrate from  directing  investigation  on  a  complaint  where  the offence  charged  is  triable exclusively by  the  Court  of Sessions.   But the Magistrate’s powers u/s. 156(3)  of  the Code  to  order investigation by the police  have  not  been touched  or  affected  by s. 202 because  these  powers  are exercised  even  before cognizance is  taken.   Section  202 would  apply  only to cases where the Magistrate  has  taken cognizance and chooses to inquire into the complaint  either himself  or  through  any other agency.  But  there  may  be circumstances  is in the present case where  the  Magistrate before  taking cognizance of  the case must himself  chooses to order a pure and simple investigation u/s. 156(3) of  the Code.   Having done so, the Magistrate can proceed with  the complaint  according to the provisions of ss. 190,  200  and 204,  of the code after receipt of the final report  by  the Police.   There is absolutely no bar to such a course  being adopted by the Magistrate. [620H, 621B-C] 617 (6) In    the instant case;               (a)   as  the  allegations  made  against  the               accused made out a cub exclusively-triable  by               the  Court  of Sessions,  the  Magistrate  was               clearly    debarred    from    ordering    any               investigation  but  he was not  debarred  from               making  any inquiry himself into the truth  of               the complaint.               (i))  The Magistrate had not taken  cognizance               of  the case and ordered investigation by  the               police u/s 156(3) before applying his mind  to               the  complaint.  This being the  position,  it               was always open to the Magistrate to take coof               the  complaint and dispose it of-according  to               law,to  say, according to provisions of  ss.               190, 200 and 202.In  view of the facts  in               the  present  case  he  was  prohibited   from               directing any investigation but he could  take               other steps. [621F, 622H, 623A]

& CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal No. 6  of 1976.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

From  the Judgment and Order dated 7-10-1975 of  the  Punjab and  Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc.  D. No. 2237-M  or 1975. D.Mookerjee,  S. N. Mehta, A. S. Sohal and Uma Dutta  for the Appellants. Harbans Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Whether or not a Magistrate after receiving  a complaint  and after directing investigation  under  section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  (hereinafter referred to as the code) and on receipt of the final  report from the police can issue notice to the complainant,  record his statement and the statements of other witnesses and then issue  processes  under  section  204 of  the  Code  is  the question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal. This  is an appeal by certificate granted by the High  Court under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution.  The answer to the  proposition mentioned above would naturally  depend  on the true and proper interpretation of the scope and ambit of sections 156(3), 190, 200 202 and 204 of the Code. Before embarking on this enquiry it may also be necessary to consider  the  legal  import and significance  of  the  term "taking cognizance" as used in sections 190, 200 and 202  of the Code.  Before however considering the various aspects of the matter it may be necessary to summarise the facts  which have led to the enquiry in the appeal before us. A  Criminal  case  was registered  by  the  Police  Officer. Police Station, Guru Har Sahai on the basis of F.I.R.  filed by  Avinash  Chandra  against Mohd.  Sadiq  and  others  for having caused the murder of one Balbir Singh.  This case was committed  to  the  Court  of  Sessions  by  the  Committing Magistrate.   A cross complaint appears to have  been  filed before  in  the Court of Judicial  Magistrate,  First-Class, Ferozepore,  on  30th December, 1974 by  Kishore  Singh  the brother  of the deceased Balbir Singh containing  a  counter version of occurrence mentioned in the 618 case  registered  by  the  police.     On  receipt  of   the complaint  the Magistrate ordered the police to  investigate the case under section 156(3) of the Code by his order dated 1.1.1975.  The police submitted a final report  on  8.3.1975 indicating  that no case was made out against  the  accused. The  Court after considering the report on 2nd  April,  1975 ordered  that  notice may be issued to  the  complainant  to appear  before him.  Consequently, the complainant  appeared along  with  his witnesses before the,  Magistrate  and  his statement was recorded on 22nd May, 1975.  On 23rd May, 1975 i.e. the next day the Magistrate issued process against  the accused by directing a non-bailable warrant against the  and summoned  them under section 304/149 and 148 of  the  I.P.C. The accused appellants moved the High Court for quashing the orderof   the  Magistrate  on  the  ground   that   the Magistrate  having once ordered investigation under  section 156(3)of the Code was not competent to revive the  complaint and issue process against the accused.  The High Court  held that  no case, for quashing the order of the Magistrate  was made  out  inasmuch  as the Magistrate  had  issued  process against the accused after taking due cognizance of the  case and  applying  his mind and recording the statement  of  the complainant.    Thereafter  the  appellants  prayed  for   a certificate  for  leave to appeal to this  Court  which  was granted. We  may  mention  at  the out set that we  are  not  at  all concerned  with  the  merits of the  case  and  the  learned counsel  Mr. D. Mukherjee appearing for the  appellants  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

argued only a pure point of law before us. He has  contended that  the  Magistrate after having referred the  matter  for investigation  to the police was not at all in law  entitled to revive the complaint when the report was in favour of the accused.   The  Magistrate  could  at  the  most  order  re- investigation  but  could not have acted  on  the  complaint which merged in the investigation by the police and lost its complete identity. Mr.  Harbans  Singh,  counsel  for  the  respondent  however submitted  that  the Magistrate had  directed  investigation under  section 156 (3) of the Code obviously  before  taking cognizance  and  after  receiving  the  report  he  was  not debarred  from  taking cognizance and  proceeding  with  the complaint filed by Kishore, Singh in accordance with law. The question as to what is meant by taking cognizance is  no longer  res  integra  as  it has  been  decided  by  several decisions of this Court.  As far back as 1951 this Court  in the  case  of  R.  R. Chari v.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh(1) observed as follows -               "Taking cognizance does not involve any formal               action or indeed action of any kind but occurs               as  soon as a Magistrate as such  applies  his               mind   to  the  suspected  commission  of   an               offence". While considering the question in greater detail this  Court endorsed  the observations of Justice Das Gupta in the  case of  Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal  Affairs,  West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee(2) which was to the following effect (1)  [1951] S.C.R. 312. (2)  A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 347. 619               "It  seems to me clear however that before  it               can  be  said that any  Magistrate  has  taken               cognizance of any offence under section 190(1)               (a), Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only               have  applied Ms mind to the contents  of  the               petition  but  he must have done  so  far  the               purpose  of proceeding in a particular way  as               indicated in the subsequent provisions of this               Chapter-proceeding   under  section  200   and               thereafter sending it for inquiry ’and  report               under   section  202.   When  the   Magistrate               applies  his  mind  not  for  the  purpose  of               proceeding  under the subsequent  sections  of               this  Chapter, but for taking action  of  some               other kind, e.g. ordering investigation  under               section  156(3), or issuing a  search  warrant               for  the  purpose  of  the  investigation,  he               cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the               offence".               Section 190 of the Code runs thus               "190.(1)  Subject  to the provisions  of  this               Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class and               any  Magistrate of the second class  specially               empowered in this behalf under subsection  (2)               may take cognizance of any offence-               (a)   upon  receiving  a  complaint  of  facts               which constitute such offence;               (b)   upon a police report of such facts;               (c)   upon   information  received  from   any               person  other than a police officer,  or  upon               his own knowledge, that such offence has  been               committed". It seems to us that there is no special charm or any magical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

formula  in the expression "taking cognizance" which  merely means judicial application of the mind of the Magistrate  to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to,  taking further action.  Thus what section 190 contemplates is  that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself  fully conscious  and  aware  of  the  allegations  made.  in   the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations The Court prescribes several modes in which a complaint can be disposed of after taking cognizance.   In the  first  place. cognizance can be taken on the  basis  of three  circumstances  : (a) upon receiving  a  complaint  of facts  which  constitute  such offence; (b)  upon  a  police report of such facts; and (c) upon information received from any  person  other than the police officer or upon  his  own knowledge,  that an offence has been committed.   These  are the  three  grounds on the basis of which a  Magistrate  can take  cognizance and decide to. act accordingly.   It  would further  appear  that this Court in the case  of  Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of West Bengal(1) observed the  mode in which a Magistrate could take cognizance of  an offence and observed as follows:-               "It  seems to me clear however that before  it               can  be  said that any  Magistrate  has  taken               cognizance of any offence under section  19(1)               (a), Criminal Procedure Code, he, (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 93,106. 3-951SCI/77 620               must  not  only have applied his mind  to  the               contents of the petition but must have done so               for the purpose of proceeding in a  particular               way as indicated in the subsequent  provisions               of this Chapter-proceeding under- section  200               and  thereafter  sending it  for  inquiry  and               report under section 202". It  is  now well settled by the decision of  this  Court  in Abhinandan  Jha  &  Ors.   Dinesh  Mishra(1)  that  while  a Magistrate can order the police to investigate the complaint it  has  no power to compel the police to submit  a  charge- sheet  on a final report being submitted by the police.   In such cases a Magistrate can either order reinvestigation  or dispose of the complaint according to law. Analysing the scheme of the Code on the subject in  question it would appear that section 156(3) which runs thus:              "Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may              order such an investigation as above mentioned. appears  in Chapter 12 which deals with information  to  the Police and the powers of the police to investigated a crime. This  section,  is therefore placed in a  Chapter  different from  Chapter 14 which deals with initiation of  proceedings against  an  accused person.  It is, therefore,  clear  that sections  190 and 156(3) are mutually exclusive and work  in totally different spheres.  In other words, the position  is that even if a Magistrate receives a complaint under section 190  he can act under section 156(3) provided that  he  does not take cognizance.  The position, therefore, is that while Chapter  14 deals with post cognizance stage Chapter  12  so far as the Magistrate is concerned deals with pre-cognizance stage, that is to say once a Magistrate starts acting  under section 190 and the provisions following he cannot resort to section  156(3).  Mr. Mukherjee vehemently contended  before us  that  in  view of this essential  distinction  once  the Magistrate  chooses to act under section 156(3) of the  Code it  was  not  open  to him to  revive  the  complaint,  take cognizance  and issue process against the accused.   Counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

argued   that  the  Magistrate  in  such  a  case  has   two alternatives  and  two  alternatives only  either  he  could direct  reinvestigation  if he was not  satisfied  with  the final  report of the police or he could  straightaway  issue process  to the accused under section 204.  In  the  instant case  the  Magistrate  has done neither but  has  chosen  to proceed  under section 190 (1 ) (a) and section 200  of  the Code and thereafter issued process against the accused under section  204.  Attractive though the argument appears to  be we  are  however unable to accept the same.   In  the  first place, the argument is based on a fallacy that when a Magis- trate   orders  investigation  under  section   156(3)   the complaint  disappears  and  goes  out  of  existence.    The provisions  of  section  202 of the  present  Code  debar  a Magistrate from directing investigation on a complaint where the  offence charged is triable exclusively by the Court  of Sessions.  On the allegations of the complainant the offence complained  of was clearly triable exclusively by the  Court of Sessions (2)  [1967] 3 S.C.R. 668. 621 and  therefore  it  is  obvious  that  the  Magistrate   was completely  debarred  from  directing  the  complaint  filed before  him to be investigated by the police  under  section 202 of the Code.  But the Magistrate’s powers under  section 156(3) of the Code to order investigation by the police have not  been touched or affected by section 202  because  these powers  are exercised even before cognizance is  taken.   In other words, section 202 would apply only to cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance and chooses to enquire  into the  ,complaint either himself or through any other  agency. But there may be circumstances as in the present case  where the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the case  himself chooses  to  order a pure :and  simple  investigation  under section  156(3) of the Code.  The ,question is, having  done so  is  lie  debarred from proceeding  with  the complaint according to the provisions of sections 190, 200 and 204 ,of the  Code after receipt of the final report by  the  police? We see :absolutely no bar to such a course being adopted  by the  Magistrate.  In the instant case, there is  nothing  to show  that  the  Magistrate had  taken  cognizance,  of  the complaint.   Even  though  the complaint was  filed  by  the Magistrate,  he. did not pass any order indicating  that  he bad  applied his judicial mind to the facts of the case  for the  purpose of proceeding with the complaint.  What he  had done was to keep the complaint aside and order investigation even before deciding to take cognizance on the basis of  the complaint.    After  the  final  report  was  received   the Magistrate  decided  to take cognizance of the case  on  the basis of the complaint and accordingly issued notice to  the ’Complainant.   Thus,  it was on 2nd April,  1975  that  the Magistrate decided for the first time to take cognizance  of the complaint and ,directed the complainant to appear.  Once cognizance was taken by the Magistrate under section 190  of the  Code it was open to him lo choose any of the  following alternatives : (1)  Postpone the issue of process and enquire into the case himself; or (2)  direct  an  investigation  to be  made  by  the  Police Officer; or (3)  any other person. In  the  instant case as the allegations  made  against  the accused made ,out a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions  the Magistrate was clearly debarred from  ordering any investigation, but he was not ,debarred from making  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

enquiry  himself into the truth of the complaint.   This  is what  exactly the Magistrate purported to have done  in  the instant   case.   The  Magistrate  issued  notice   to   the complainant to appear before him, recorded the statement of the  complainant  and his witnesses and after  perusing  the same  he  acted under section 204 ,of the  Code  by  issuing process  to the accused appellants as he was satisfied  that there  were  sufficient grounds for proceeding  against  the accused. Mr.   Mukherjee  however  submitted  that  the  moment   the Magistrate directed investigation he must be deemed to have taken  cognizance, :and, therefore, be could not have  taken any of the steps excepting 622 summoning    the   accused   straight-away   or    directing reinvestigation.   We have already pointed out that  Chapter 12 and Chapter 14 subserve two different purposes : One pre- cognizance  action  and the other  post  cognizance  action. That fact was recognised by a recent decision of this  Court in the case of Devarpalli Lakshminaryana Reddy & Ors.  V. V. Narayana  Reddy  &  Ors. (1) where  the  Court  observed  as follows               "The power to order police investigation under               section 156(3) is different from the power  to               direct  investigation  conferred  by   section               202(1).   The  two  operates  in  a   distinct               spheres  at  different stages.  The  first  is               exercisable  at the pre-cognizance stage,  the               second  at the post-cognizance stage when  the               Magistrate  is in seisin of the case. That  is               to  say in the case of a  complaint  regarding               the  commission of a cognizance  offence,  the               power  under section 156(3) can be invoked  by               the  Magistrate before he takes cognizance  of               the offence under section 190 (1 )(a).  But if               he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon               the  procedure embodied in Chapter XV,  he  is               not  competent  to  switch back  to  the  pre-               cognizance stage and avail of section 156(3)". In the case of Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.(2)  this  Court  while approving  the  observations  of Justice Das Gupta in the case referred to above observed  as follows :-               "It  would be clear from the  observations  of               Mr.  Justice Das Gupta that when a  Magistrate               applies  his  mind  not  for  the  purpose  of               proceeding  under  the  various  sections   of               Chapter  XVI  but for taking  action  of  some               other kind,, e.g. ordering investigation under               section 156(3) or issuing a search warrant for               the  purpose  of investigation, he  cannot  be               said to have taken cognizance of any offence." To  the same effect is the decision of this Court in  Jamuna Singh & Ors.v. Bhadai Sah(3).               "It  is  well  settled  now  that  when  on  a               petition of complaint being filed before him a               Magistrate  applies  his mind  for  proceeding               under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of               the  Code  of Criminal Procedure, he  must  be               held  to have taken cognizance of the  offence               mentioned       in       the        complaint.               When however he applies his mind not for  such               purpose   but   for   purposes   of   ordering               investigation under section 156(3) or issues               a   search   warrant  for   the   purpose   of               investigation he cannot be said to have  taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             cognizance of any offence." In these circumstances the inescapable conclusion is that in the present case the Magistrate had not taken cognizance  of the  case  and  ordered investigation by  the  police  under section 156(3) before applying his (1)[1976] Supp.  S.C.R. 524. (2) A.I.R 1961 S.C. 986. (3) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 37,41. 623 mind  to  the  complaint.  This being the  position  it  was always  open  to the Magistrate to take  cognizance  of  the complaint and dispose it of according to law, that is to say according  to the provisions of sections 190, 200  and  202. In  view of the facts in the present case he was  prohibited from  directing  any investigation but he could  take  other steps.  Even in the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v.  Dinesh Mishra (supra) this Court while holding that the  Magistrate has supervisory power over the police and it was not open to him  direct the police to file a charge-sheet observes  that the  Court  was not powerless to dispose  of  the  complaint according  to law.  In this connection, this Court  observed as follows :               "We are not inclined to agree with the further               view  that from these considerations alone  it               can  be  said that when the  police  submit  a               report  that  no case has been made  out  for,               sending up an accused for trial, it is open to               the Magistrate to direct the police to file  a               charge-sheet.  But, we may make it clear  that               this  is  not to say that  the  Magistrate  is               absolutely  powerless,  because,  as  will  be               indicated  later,  it is open to him  to  take               cognizance   of   an  offence   and   proceed,               according to law." In  these  circumstances we are satisfied  that  the  action taken by the Magistrate was fully supportable in law and  he did  not commit any error in recording the statement of  the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter issuing process against  the appellants.  The High Court has  discussed  the points  involved  thread-bare and has also cited  number  of decisions  and we entirely agree with the view taken by  the High  Court.  Thus on a careful consideration of  the  facts and   circumstances   of  the  case  the   following   legal propositions emerge               1.    That    a    Magistrate    can     order               investigation under section 156(3) only at the               pre-cognizance  stage, that is to say,  before               taking cognizance under sections 190, 200  and               204  and  where a Magistrate decides  to  take               cognizance under the provisions of Chapter  14               he  is  not  entitled  in  law  to  order  any               investigation  under section 156(3) though  in               cases  not  falling  within  the  proviso   to               section  202 he can order an investigation  by               the police which would be in the nature of  an               enquiry as contemplated by section 202 of  the               Code.               2.    Where  a  Magistrate  chooses  to   take               cognizance  he can adopt any of the  following               alternatives :               (a)   He  can  pursue that  complaint  and  if               satisfied that               there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he               can straightaway issue process to the  accused               but before he does so he must comply with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

             requirements  of  section 200 and  record  the               evidence of the complainant or his witnesses.               The  Magistrate  can  postpone  the  issue  of               process and direct an enquiry by himself.               624               (c)   The Magistrate can postpone the issue of               process  and  direct an enquiry by  any  other               person or an investigation by the police.               3.In case the Magistrate after considering               the  statement  of  the  complainant  and  the               witnesses or as a result of the  investigation               and the enquiry ordered is not satisfied  that               there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he               can dismiss the complaint.               4.    Where a Magistrate orders  investigation               by the police, before taking cognizance under               section  156(3) of the Code and  receives  the               report thereupon he can act on the report  and               discharge  the accused or  straightaway  issue               process against the accused or apply his  mind               to  the  complaint filed before him  and  take               action under section 190 as described above. The  present  case is clearly covered by proposition  No.  4 formulated, above. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal which  is accordingly dismissed. S. R.           Appeal dismissed.. 625