[> Petitioner HiOH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.888 of 2010 Suresh Prasad Mishra, aged about 59 years, son of Shri Suryabhan Mishra, R/o. ViSI. Sevra, Tah. Pendra, Distt.Biiaspur (CG) Versus Respondents Vijay Yadav, agsd about 32 years son of Shri Gois, R/o ViiJ.Sevra, Tah.Pendra, Distt.Biiaspur (CG) 2. 3. Ramkrishna @ Manju, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Nand Kumar MIshra, R/o Viii Sevra, Tah. Pendra, Distt.BiSaspur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan, Ratpur (CG) (Pstition under Seciion 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, *i.) Present:- Syir.T.K.Tiwari, counsel forthe pstitioner. Mr-Ashok Soni, counseltor respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Rakesh KumarJha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for responctent No.S/State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 27"' Jsnuary, 2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has chaiienged iegality and propriety of the order dated 9.11 .2010 passed by the Judicsai Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in unregistsred complaint. 2. As per case of the petitioner, prssent respondents No.1 and 2 along with othsr persons have committed murder of two persons, but the poiice has not fiied charge sheet against them. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed compiaint against respondents No.1 and 2 before the Judicia! Magistrate First Ciass, Pendra Road and has atso filed one application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for additionai investigation against respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Whiie proceeding under Chaptsr XV of the Cr.P.C., Magisfrate has deciined to act under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. i.e., Judiciai Magistrate First Ciass, Pendrs Road has chossn to procsed under Chaptsr XV of the Cr.P.C. instead of refraining itseif for taking 3Z <z- cognizance and proceeding for inquiry in Chapter XV of the Gr.P.C. in the light ofprovisions contained in Section 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigating authority was having sufficient material against respondents No.1 and 2 but has not fitsd charge sheet against them, thersfore, the present petitioner has filed oomplaint in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. a!ong with an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for additional invsstigation relating to respondents No.1 and 2, but the trial Court has declinsd to direct the investigating agency or poiice. Leamed counsel placed raliance in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. rsported in 2008 AIR SC 1 308 in which the Supreme Court has held that Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizancs of the offencs, can order investigation under Saction 156(3} of the Code. 4. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the State opposes the petition and .submits that Judicial Magistrate First Class has two options In terms of Sectfon 156(3) and Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. either to take cognizancs and proceed for inquiry in Chapter XV or without proceeding and taking cognfzance of the offence to direct the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, order impugned reveals that instead of refraining itself from taking.cogriizance and proceeding in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road has decided to proceed for inquiry in accordance with Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and has declined to dirsct the poiice for investigation undsr Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that by passing such order, the trial Court has not committed any illegaiity. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu (supra) has observed in para 12 as under:- "12.Thus in Mohd. vs. Smt.Afaq Jahan & Anr., JT 2006 (1) SC 10, this Court observed: 'The clear position therefore, is that any Judicial Magi^rate, before taking cognizance ofthe offence, can order investigation under Section 155(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the comptainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the poiice to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to regtster an FIR. There ts nothing iilegal in doing so. After all registration of an F!R involves onty the \</ process of entering the substance of the information relatlng to \ the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the \ officer-in-charge of the poiice statjon as indicated in Section ^5^ i ^?-sy^f^&. 1 ^1> ... f, ^. l~"{6fs-sf''^ ''ik,... 'iar.s>t' 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate ctoes not say in so many words while directing investigating under Sectfon 156(3) ofthe Cocie that an F!R shouid be registsred, st is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the poiice station to register the FIR regarding the cognizabie offence disciosed by the compiaint because that police ofRcer could take further steps contempiated in ChapterXli ofthe Code only thereafter." 6. Magistrate is competent to proceed in ChapSer XV of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of compiaint made to it, but instead of taking cognizance and procesding under Chapter XV ofthe Cr.P.C., Magistrate is aiso empowered to direct the police underSection 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 7. In the present case, ordsr impugned reveals that in the absence of any ground for issuance of direction under Section 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C., Judicial Magistrate Firet Class, Pendra Road has proceedsd under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. 8. While proceeding under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and not Issuing any direction under Section 155(3) of the Cr.P.C., the tria! Court has not committed any illegality warranting any interference in terms of Section 482 oftheCr.P.C. 9. Consequently, the petition is liabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge n\ /