- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against a summoning order.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this application are rather unusual, Opposite party No. 1 Munna Lal, alleging himself to be husband of applicant, Smt. Dropadi, made complaint to the Magistrate against Smt. Dropadi, her relations and applicant No. 2 for offence of bigamy under Section 494, I. P. C. He alleged abetment of the offence by the relations of Srnt. Dropadi applicant No. 2 Ram Awtar. Learned Magistrate to whom complaint was made, passed order "register. Send copy of complaint to S. O. , P. S. Nawabganj, for investigation. Report be filed within a month" (order on application ). On subsequent date the Magistrate noted that police report had not been received. He fixed a date for report and evidence. Ultimately the report was received. In presence of opposite party No. 2 learned Magistrate perused his complaint and police re port. He found prima facie case against the applicants but did not find and case against relation of the applicant No. 1, Smt. Dropadi. Hence, he passed order summoning applicants for offence under Section 494, I. P. C. On behalf of the applicants reliance was placed on the single Judge cases of Ram Narain v. Lokuram and others, (1987 (2) Crimes 400) (Rajasthan High Court's case) and Kunwar Singh v. State, (U. P. Criminal Rulings 239) and it was argued that in view of Clause (b) of the Proviso of Section 202 (1), Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct police investigation. But in view of case of Nirmaljit Singh Moon v. State of West Bengal and anther, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and Deverpalli Lakhshminaryana Ready and others v. V. Narayapa Ready and others, 1976 SCC (Criminal) 380 the arguments advanced has no force.
(3.) THERE are two provisions in the Code for directing police investi gation, namely, Sees. 156 (3) and 202 (2 ). Both these provisions are indendent of each other. Once a Magistrate has taken cognizance of a Complaint, he cannot direct police investigation unless he has examined the complaint and witnesses present on oath under Sec. 200, Cr. P. C. But if he has not taken cognizance, he has jurisdiction to direct police investigation under Section 156 (3 ). In that event for taking cognizance he has to rely upon police report. Whether the Magistrate took cognizance of the case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Word 'register' is a ministerial direction for statistical purposes. It does not connote that the Magistrate applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint for taking cognizance. An order for sending copy of the complaint to the Station Officer, Police Station for investigation of the case implied only this much that the Magistrate applied mind to the allegations of the complaint only for the police investigation. In the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that before ordering police investigation Magistrate took cognizance of the case. The Single Judge cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are obviously distinguishable because in both these cases it was impliedly presumed that the Magistrate took cognizance. I hold that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, before taking cognizance Magistrate had jurisdiction for directing police investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C.;