Cognizance under CrPC bars later Section 156(3) investigation; GST non-deposit may still attract IPC breach of trust charges.

Once a Magistrate has applied judicial mind to a complaint and fixed it for examination under Section 200 CrPC, cognizance is taken and the matter cannot be sent back to the pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) CrPC. The later direction for police investigation was therefore unsustainable. On the tax offence issue, failure to deposit collected State GST did not, in principle, exclude prosecution under Sections 406 and 409 IPC where the pleaded facts disclose criminal breach of trust ingredients alongside Section 132 of the GST law. The order directing investigation was quashed, and the complaint was left to proceed from the cognizance stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate, after having already taken cognizance of the complaint and fixed the matter for examination under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could thereafter send the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. (ii) Whether allegations of non-deposit of collected tax under the State GST law could also sustain prosecution under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code alongside Section 132 of the State GST Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate, after having already taken cognizance of the complaint and fixed the matter for examination under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could thereafter send the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.

Analysis: A Magistrate may either take cognizance on a complaint and proceed under Chapter XV of the Code, or before taking cognizance may direct investigation under Section 156(3). Once cognizance is taken, the matter cannot be reverted to the pre-cognizance stage. The earlier order fixing the complaint for examination under Section 200, after perusal of the record, showed application of mind and an election to proceed with cognizance-based . The later order directing investigation under Section 156(3) therefore proceeded on an erroneous assumption that cognizance had not yet been taken.

Conclusion: The Magistrate could not validly direct investigation under Section 156(3) after cognizance had already been taken; the impugned order was unsustainable and is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether allegations of non-deposit of collected tax under the State GST law could also sustain prosecution under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code alongside Section 132 of the State GST Act.

Analysis: The penal scheme of the State GST law and the ingredients of criminal breach of trust operate in different fields. A transaction involving collection of tax and failure to deposit it may, depending on the pleaded facts, attract the special tax offence as well as the ingredients of criminal breach of trust. The special statute does not automatically exclude the general penal law where the necessary ingredients of the latter are disclosed. The Court also cautioned that invocation of IPC provisions must be done with due application of mind.

Conclusion: The simultaneous reference to Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code was not ruled out in principle, and no ground was made out to exclude them at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The order directing police investigation was quashed, and the complaint was left to proceed from the stage of cognizance in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a Magistrate applies judicial mind to a complaint with a view to proceeding under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance is taken and the Magistrate cannot thereafter revert to Section 156(3) to order police investigation.

---