Pre-cognizance police investigation under Section 156(3) is distinct from post-cognizance inquiry under Sections 200 and 202.

A Magistrate may, in judicial discretion, direct police investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage when a complaint discloses cognizable offences. That power operates in a different sphere from the Chapter XV procedure under Sections 200 and 202, which applies after cognizance and is confined to deciding whether sufficient ground exists to proceed. Where the Magistrate only orders investigation and registration of an FIR, without entering the Chapter XV inquiry, a challenge under Article 226 is premature. The High Court was therefore justified in declining interference, and the investigation order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate may order police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the pre-cognizance stage on a complaint disclosing cognizable offences, and how that power differs from the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. (ii) Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with a Magistrate's order directing investigation under Section 156(3) in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate may order police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the pre-cognizance stage on a complaint disclosing cognizable offences, and how that power differs from the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.

Analysis: The statutory scheme places Section 156(3) in Chapter XII, which governs police powers to investigate cognizable cases, whereas Sections 200 and 202 fall in Chapter XV, which governs complaints to Magistrates after cognizance. The two provisions operate in distinct spheres. If a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in judicial discretion, direct investigation under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance. Once cognizance is taken and the Magistrate embarks upon the Chapter XV procedure, the matter stands on a different footing and the Section 202 inquiry is only for deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

Conclusion: The Magistrate could validly order investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage, and that power is distinct from the post-cognizance inquiry under Section 202.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with a Magistrate's order directing investigation under Section 156(3) in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed cognizable offences and the Magistrate had only directed investigation and registration of an FIR. The Magistrate had not embarked upon the Chapter XV procedure, had not examined the complainant under Section 200, and had not decided the complaint on merits. In those circumstances, the challenge was premature. The High Court's refusal to interfere was consistent with the limited nature of judicial review over such an order, especially where the police investigation had merely been set in motion and the Magistrate would still consider the matter upon receipt of the police report.

Conclusion: The High Court was right in declining interference, and the challenge to the Magistrate's order was premature.

Final Conclusion: The order directing investigation was sustained, the interference sought against it failed, and the connected stay order was vacated, leaving the parties to pursue their remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 156(3) may be passed at the pre-cognizance stage on a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, and the Magistrate's direction for investigation is distinct from the post-cognizance procedure under Sections 200 and 202.

---