Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a Magistrate is justified in directing investigation by police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before taking cognizance, and whether refusal to quash such proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was proper.
Analysis: A Magistrate may, before taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such course would aid justice. At that stage, the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant on oath. Once cognizance is taken and the procedure under Chapter XV is embarked upon, the Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and invoke Section 156(3). The permissible courses include issuing process after following Section 200, postponing process and holding an inquiry, or directing police investigation. On the facts, the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in directing investigation, and the High Court was right in declining interference under Section 482.
Conclusion: The order directing investigation under Section 156(3) was valid, and the refusal to quash the proceedings was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate may, before taking cognizance, direct police investigation under Section 156(3) where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, but after taking cognizance the Magistrate cannot revert to that pre-cognizance power.