S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) relates to quashment of order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra, dated 9.3.1989. (copy Annexure P-2 Annexure P-1) and consequent F.I.R. dated 10 registered against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra Annexure P-1.
(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that a case against respondent No 2 was registered under Sections 14 of the Indian Penal Code on 4-2-1989 at Polite Station Sadar Thanesar. Respondent No. 2 along with his other co-accused was arrested on the basis of the said case. Thereafter, he is said to have filed a false Complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, under Sections 323/325/452/148/149/504/596of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 IPC. The aforesaid Court sent the said complaint to the Station House Officer of P S. Sadar, Thanesar for registration of case and investigation. The counsel for the parties were heard. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Magistrate had chosen to act under Section 156(3) of the Code, he could only order the police to conduct investigation concerning allegations mentioned in the complaint, and could pot legally direct the police to register a case on the basis of the said complaint.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contention made by the counsel for the petitioners,' it would be desirable to know the distinction of power of Magistrate to order police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code from his power to direct the investigation, under Section 202(1) of the Code. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, it was observed in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and, others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others, 1976 S.C.C., (Cri.) 380, by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, as under : "The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1) The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance state, the second a the post-cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. Therefore, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of section 156(3)." ;