IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.25573-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 22, 2008 SANGITA RANI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PLICE & ANR. ...... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate, for respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for setting aside orders dated 24.12.2007 and 7.1.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and order dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. It transpires that the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, with a prayer that the matter be sent under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, for registration of FIR against the persons named as accused. When the matter was taken up on 24.12.2007, the complaint was registered and was adjourned to 12.2.2008, for preliminary evidence. It seems that the matter was again Criminal Misc.25573-M of 2008 2 pursued and on 7.1.2008, when the other impugned order was passed, the contention was made that a direction be issued for registration of the case. The Magistrate declined the request as the matter had already been fixed for calling for preliminary evidence. A revision petition was carried, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-8). The legal position has been summed up by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the case in Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2401. Exact reference to para-14 may be made in this regard, which reads as under:- “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. Criminal Misc.25573-M of 2008 3 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 requirements of section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses. (b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself. (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.” In the case in hand, the Magistrate has exercised the jurisdiction to treat the matter as a complaint case and take preliminary evidence. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was mandatory for the Magistrate to refer the matter under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be accepted as it is for the Magistrate to consider in what manner to deal with the case. Criminal Misc.25573-M of 2008 4 Investigation under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, can be ordered only at pre-cognizance stage. In the case in hand, however, the Magistrate has decided to take cognizance under Chapter XIV, Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate and the revision petition has been dismissed for legally tenable reasons. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. December 22, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE