HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.978 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the docket order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in C.F.S.R.No.11544 of 2009 in C.F.S.R.No.6828 of 2009. The petitioner-complainant filed a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 120 A & B, 405, 415, 418, 420 and 464 of I.P.C. The complainant requested the Court to refer the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to S.H.O, Keesara Police Station for investigation and report. The said complaint was returned by a docket order dated 21.07.2009 on the ground that the contents of the complaint are civil in nature and the said docket order was earlier challenged by the petitioner-complainant before this Court by filing Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2009 and while disposing of the said revision on 22.9.2009, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the complaint after answering the objections and hearing the revision petitioner. This was exercised and again the complaint was returned on the same ground by the order now impugned in this revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that if the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the case was of a civil nature, he could have conducted enquiry on the complaint and passed an order either entertaining the complaint or returning the complaint, but he is not supposed to return the complaint without an enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating for registration of private complaint. He further submits that the offences alleged against the accused are cognizable offences and if the investigation conducted by the police reveals that the matter is of civil nature, they will file a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. He also relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in A.VINAYAGAM AND OTHERS Vs. DR.SUBASH CHANDRAN[1], wherein in paras 14 and 15, it was held as under: “The combined reading of Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines “complaint” and Rules 28 and 111 of the Criminal Rules of Practice would suggest that all that the complainant has to do for lodging a complaint is to present a complaint to the Magistrate. That would pre-suppose that the complaint is filed with proper Court-fee, which would be paid along with the complaint. Careful scrutiny of the Criminal Rules of Practice as also the Code of Criminal Procedure does not show that anything more is required at this stage to be presented by the complainant or that any documents are also required to be filed along with the complaint. Once a complaint is filed, which answers the description in Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with proper Court-fees and copies there would be no question of doing anything further at that stage. In this behalf, Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely telling. It goes without saying, however, that Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure commences with the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. Chapter XV deals with the complaints to the Magistrate and provides for all that the Magistrate has to do after taking the cognizance that the Magistrate has to do under Section 200 (a). When the Magistrate takes cognizance upon receiving a complaint under clause (a) of Section 200, he acts on the basis of the contents in the complaint with a view to proceed in the matter and has the following courses open:- I. He has to examine the complainant and his witnesses, if any. II. After such examination, he may postpone the issuance of process by inquiring into the case by himself or directing an investigation to be made by a police officer. III. If the Magistrate is convinced after the examination of the complainant or as the case may be his witnesses, he may decide to issue the process. IV. He may straight away decide to dismiss the complaint, after such an exercise of examination of the complainant and the witnesses. Law does not know or provide any other mode of dealing with the complaint, much less returning the complaint. It is not possible for a Magistrate to return the complaint for the so-called defects and if the defects are there in the complaint, the complainant has to suffer. There is no warrant in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Criminal Rules of Practice, empowering the Magistrate to return the complaint just because he thinks that there are any defects. In this behalf, the observation by both the learned Judges that the Magistrate has a power to return the complaint because he has a power to accept is clearly incorrect. In the first place, the Magistrate does not have a “power” to accept the complaint. That is not the power of the Court. That is the “duty” on the part of the Court in contradistinction to its “powers”. Again, unless there is a specific provision in the Code or the Rules, the Magistrate cannot find out his own procedure by returning the complaint as it is. In fact, when the complainant presents the case to the Magistrate that is not the stage of examining the defects and it is not for the Magistrate to examine the so-called defects in the complaint. All that the Magistrate has to do is to consider the same by ordering the examination of complainant and/or as the case may be, his witnesses.” When a private complaint is filed under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 200, 201, 202 and 203 of Cr.P.C. If the complaint discloses an offence which is cognizable, then he can refer the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., otherwise he could follow the procedure such as recording sworn statement, conducting inquiry before summoning the accused, but he cannot straight away reject the complaint on prima facie ground without any enquiry. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot sustain and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, is hereby directed to take cognizance of the offences against the accused, provided the complaint filed by the petitioner is in accordance with law. Office is directed to return the original papers to the learned Counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to file the same before the Court below. ________________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 14 -12-2010 Gsn. [1] 2000 CRL.L.J 1579