Cognizable offence requirement limits Section 156(3) investigation orders; complaint-based direction quashed for non-disclosure.

A Magistrate may direct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure only when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. Where the complaint and accompanying materials do not disclose such an offence, the statutory safeguard in Section 155(2) must be applied, and an order for investigation cannot stand unless cognizance has been taken under Section 190. On the facts stated, the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence and the order directing investigation was unsustainable in law, so it was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate could direct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a complaint that did not disclose a cognizable offence, and whether the resulting order was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The complaint and accompanying materials were found not to disclose a cognizable offence. The statutory safeguard under Section 155(2) of the Code had to be strictly followed, and the power under Section 156(3) could be exercised only where the complaint disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. The order also did not show that cognizance had been taken under Section 190 of the Code.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's order directing investigation was unsustainable in law and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate cannot validly invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to order investigation unless the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and where it does not, the protection under Section 155(2) must be enforced.

---