THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2470 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), aggrieved by the returning of complaint in CC.SR.No.8496 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate at Tenali, Guntur District, filed under Sections 190 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. read with Sections 419, 420, 441, 442, 467, 470 read with Sections 34 and 120-B and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to take cognizance of the same. The brief facts are as follows. The petitioner-complainant preferred complaint against four persons-respondents 2 to 5 herein for the offences under the Sections mentioned above. The allegation against the respondents is that they forged the Will and tried to grab the property belonging to the complainant. When the complaint before the Court concerned is filed, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint with an endorsement that except his oral evidence, no other document is filed to show that the respondents committed forgery and directed the complainant to file the petition along with required documents to substantiate his case. The said order is now under challenge. When a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is filed, the learned Magistrate can peruse the complaint and if he is of opinion that offence is committed, he can refer the matter for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or he can take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the case. Mean while he can also order for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. But the present procedure followed by the learned Magistrate directing the complainant to file documentary evidence is against the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can either take cognizance or direct the police to investigate the said complaint if cognizable offence is made out. The learned Magistrate has no power prior to taking cognizance to order for production of some material or documents before the Court concerned. Hence, the direction by the Magistrate for production of documents is erroneous in law. Hence, the revision case is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to file complaint before the Court concerned. The learned Magistrate is directed either to order for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance of the offence without directing the petitioner to file any documents before the Court concerned. Registry is directed to return the original papers filed by the petitioner herein. _______________ (RAJA ELANGO, J) 15th December 2011 RRB