CRM No. M-15253 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-15253 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.05.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of UT, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23rd March, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby it decided to entertain the complaint preferred by the complainant and fixed the case for his preliminary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he had preferred the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In view of the said provision, the Magistrate should have directed investigation of the matter by the police. According to the counsel, the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of the complaint and asked for preliminary evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. It is evident from a perusal of the complaint, Annexure P-1, annexed with the petition, that the same was filed under Section 200 CRM No. M-15253 of 2009 2 read with Sections 190 & 156 Cr.P.C. It appears that after examining the contents of the complaint, the Magistrate called upon the complainant to lead preliminary evidence. From the impugned order, it is clear that the Magistrate did not deem it fit to order investigation by the police but decided to seek preliminary evidence from the complainant. I find no legal infirmity with the procedure adopted by the Magistrate. In the judgment reported as Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. And another, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 628, it has been held by the Apex Court as under:- “9. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202 (1) of the Code would convince that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202 (1) i.e. “or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. This is because he has already taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint, and the domain of the CRM No. M-15253 of 2009 3 case would thereafter vest with him.” Since the Magistrate has sought preliminary evidence, he has decided to take cognizance of the complaint. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate is in accordance with law. There is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 30, 2009 'rajpal'