N. K. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of learned Additional Distt and Sessions. Judge, Nohar dated 27. 11. 87 whereby the order directing investigation passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Nohar dated 9. 11. 87 was affirmed.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition are that on 30. 10. 87 one Rajendra Singh moved an application with the allegation that on 29. 10. 87, the process server with the help of Ramdayal got the notice served, to some other person, instead of him. It was alleged that the verification was made by Maniram, Pusaram and Redram that Rajendra Singh has refused to take notice in their presence which were issued for 30. 10. 87 by the court in a injunction suit along with application filed by Kana Ram and others against Rajendra Singh. The learned Magistrate, confronted the process server Anoop Singh, who has admitted that in fact notices were not served on Rajendra Singh s/o Amra Ram but to some other person. On this learned Magistrate issued direction for investigation against 4 persons for the offence u/s. 419, 467, 120-B IPC by the order dated 9. 11. 87. On appeal, the same was dismissed by learned ADJ by the order dated 27. 11. 87. Hence this petition. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue direction to register the case for investigation. He further submitted that no prosecution could be launched by the Magistrate Without making inquiry and following procedure u/s. 340 Cr. P. C. Mr. Rajendra Choudhary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner no. 2 and Mr. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that the learned Magistrate has only directed to investigate the matter and has not taken any cognizance as yet and thus there is an abuse of the process of the court and as such the petition is not maintainable. I have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Choudhary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner no. 2 and Mr. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. In order to appreciate the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to reproduce Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , which runs as under:- "156 Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case.- (l) (2). . . . . . . . . . . (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. " Sec. 190 Cr. P. C reads as under:- "190 Cognizance of offences by Magistrate.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, and Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) . . . . . . . "
(3.) IT is clear from the perusal of section 190 Cr. P. C, that before taking cognizance the Magistrate can ask for investigation to the police under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has only directed to register the case and investigate the matter, which has come to his knowledge on the application of Rajendra Singh, as evident from the order dated 9. 11. 87. Under these circumstances, question of preliminary enquiry as envisaged under sec. 340 Cr. P. C. does not arise. In view of the matter, there is no abuse of the process of the court and in my opinion, the order passed by learned Magistrate confirmed by the order of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, directing the Police for investigation is within its jurisdiction and call for no interference. In the result, this petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. . ;