JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Raja Ram v. Tilak Ram and Ors., which was confirmed in criminal revision No. 375 of 2005 vide judgment and order dated 25.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 3, Basti Submision of behalf of the is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the contesting opposite party. A copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Allegation is that accused Tilak Ram resides adjacent to the house of the applicant and several attempts were made by the contesting opposite party to grab the land of the applicant. On 31.3.2005 at about 2:00 p.m., accused Tilak Ram accompanied with co-accused Munni Lal, Munshi and Pradeep armed with Lathi, Danda, Kudal, Fawrah and Sabbal came to the door of the applicant and started to destroy Charan, Ghoor, Ganj, Kandaura situated on the land of the applicant. The accused gave severe beating and the applicant's wife attempted to intervene and save the applicant, but she was also pushed and accused Tilak Ram snatched her Silver Mangalsutra, and utensils of the house were also destroyed. Hearing noise caused on account of the incident, witnesses Ram Dulare, Chhotey Lal s/o Bhagirathi, Vindhayachal s/o Ganga Prasad along with some other villagers reached at the place of occurrence and saved life of the applicant. The accused fled away after extending threat and abuse to the applicant. The efforts to get First Information Report registered, was rendered futile as S.H.O. Police Station Parshurampur was under influence of the accused. Injuries were examined. A copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The police had failed to register the case as a result of which, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed S.H.O. concerned police station to submit a report but since no report was forthcoming, the Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded to register the application as a complaint case, and proceeded to record statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged in revision, which has been dismissed, the same is impugned in the instant application. The inherent powers have been invoked on the ground that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed, the Magistrate cannot proceed as a complaint case. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench Decision in the case of Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC page 50 and also on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. 2001 (42) ACC page 459. I have gone through the decisions and heard arguments of the counsel for the applicant at length. The paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of case of Suresh Chand Jain (Supra) is quoted below:
7. The investigation referred to therein, is the same investigation and the various steps to be adopted for it have been elaborated in Chapter XII of the Code. Such investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer-in-charge of a police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation started thereafter can end up only with report filed by the police as indicated in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation contemplated in that Chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. Hut that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code. Hut the significant point to be noticed is, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence.
8. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to lake 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(I) 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 he/ping 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(I) 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 case would thereafter vest with him.
3. In the circumstances, it is evident that the Apex Court has clearly differentiated the two stages when the Magistrate takes cognizance under Chapter XII of the Code and on the other occasion under Chapter XV of the Code. It is clear that in the event the Magistrate directed for registering a report and by investigation by the police under Chapter XII of the Code, it is pre-cognizance stage, it will only end up when a report contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is submitted after completion of the investigation but in the event the Magistrate chooses to proceed under Chapter XV of the Code, the Magistrate took cognizance after examining complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been taken in a decision of this Court, in the case of Gulab Chand Upadhayay v. State of U.P. 2002 (44) ACC page 670, it has clearly been held that when the Magistrate is approached by the complainant with an application making prayer for a direction to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register and investigate an alleged cognizable offence, then the Magistrate is competent to treat the application as a complaint and follow procedure of Chapter XV of the Code. The scheme of the Code requires that registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised when some "investigation is required or in other cases when certain recovery is to be made". But in the event, the complainant has given full details of the accused as well as witnesses who are to be examined, neither recovery is needed nor any such material evidence requires to be collected, then in such circumstances, the Magistrate is fully empowered to follow procedure of the complaint case. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Josef Mathari and Anr. v. Swami Sachidanand Sakshi 2001 (suppl.) ACC Page 975. 1 have gone through the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it is clear that allegations are unambiguous. Injury report has been annexed and name of the witnesses as well as specific role of individual accused has been detailed. In the circumstances, there is no need for any investigation by the police and, therefore, the applicant committed no illegality whatsoever in adopting procedure provided for the complaint case.
4. Therefore, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that no investigation is required, there is no illegality. Besides, Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate can inquire into the matter or direct the investigation to be made by the police officer. In the circumstances, when the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that something is to be investigated, he can always get it inquired at a later date. In the case of Dinesh Chandra v. State of P.P. 2000 (41) ACC page 832, this Court has held that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed and the police report is called for, it is not a conclusion arrived at by the police after the investigation, but the requirement is for a limited purpose, whether any First Information Report has been registered in respect of the same incident or not? In the instant case, admittedly the police was directed and a report was called for on several occasions but for the reasons best known, no report was sent by the police. The learned Magistrate was of the view that cognizable offence is made out and, therefore, proceeded under Chapter XV of the Code to record the statement of the complainant and witnesses. In the circumstances I conclude that no illegality has been committed by the Magistrate while proceeding to record the statement under Section 156(3), 200/202 Cr.P.C. and in view of decision of the Apex Court, it does not call for any interference. The application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. The Magistrate shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the procedure adopted by him.