1

  COMPLAINTS TO MAGISTRATES

Options available to a Magistrate who is competent to take
cognizance of the offence.

1. (A)  Rejection   of
complaint
AA) CREF Finance Ltd. Vs. Sree
i)     If   the   complaint   on   the Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd.(2005) 7
face   of   it   does   not   at   all SCC 467=AIR 2005 SC 4284.
make out any offence, then AB)   Govind   Mehta   vs.   State   of
the   Magistrate   may   reject Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1708.
the complaint.  AC) Nagraj vs. State of Mysore,
ii)   The   said   power   should AIR 1964 SC 269.
not   be   mistaken   for   power
of dismissal available to the
Magistrate   under   section
203,  Cr.  P.C,  which  can be
exercised   only   at   the   post­
cognizance stage.

2.     (B)   Order i   a)   Dilawar   Singh   vs.   State   of

investigation   under Delhi. AIR 2007 SC 3234.
Sec.156 (3), Cr. P.C. i b) Suresh Chand Jain vs. State
of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 571.
(i)   Where   the   Magistrate
does   not       reject   the
complaint   at   the
threshold,   the   Magistrate
may,  without   taking
cognizance   of   offence,   order ii a) Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh
an   investigation   by   the AIR 1977 SC 2401.

police under sec. 156(3), Cr.
P.C,   and  forward   the
complaint to the police. This
is   only   at   the   pre­
cognizance stage.
ii)   Even   a   complaint
alleging   the   commission   of
offence   exclusively   triable
by a Court of Session can be
forwarded   under   sec.
156(3), Cr. P.C.
(iii)   The   complaint
forwarded   under   Sec.
156(3), will have to treat as
a   First   Information   Report
as   per   Sec.   154,   Cr.   P.C.
and   is   bound   to   register   a
crime   and   proceed   to
conduct an investigation as
provided under  AIR1977 SC 2401).
Sec. 157, Cr. P.C. 
iv) If the police station has
no   territorial   jurisdiction
then   the   police   officer   will
have   to   register   the   crime
and then transfer the same
to the Police Station having
jurisdiction.
  
   (v)  (A)  If   the   investigation
under   Sec.   156(3)   is   ordered,
the   police   will   have   to
2
ii   b)   Madhao   v.   State   of
Maharashtra   (2013)   5   SCC   615
(Two JJ)
iii   a)   Mohammed   Yousuff   vs.
Smt.   Afaq   Jahan,   AIR   2006   SC
705.
iv   a)   Madhubala   vs.   Suresh
Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476 = AIR
1997 SC 3104, State of A. P. Vs.
Punati   Ramulu   AIR   1993   SC
2644.   (However   this   power   can
not   be   exercised   by   him   after
taking   cognizance   in   view   of
Tula   Ram   Vs.   Kishore   Singh.
v   Aa)   Abhinandan   Jha   Vs.
Dinesh   Mishra.   AIR   1968   SC
117.
v   Ab)   H.S.Bains   vs.   State   AIR
1980 SC 1883.
v Ac) M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.   State   of   Karnataka   and
another.   AIR   1989   SC   885
(Three Judges).
 3

investigate   the   matter   and

submit   a   report   under   Sec.
173(2), Cr. P.C.  Thereafter the
Magistrate   may   take
cognizance of the offence under
Sec.   190(1)   (b),   Cr.   P.C.   and
issue   process   straightway   to
the accused.

v Ba) M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd.
vs.   State   of   Karnataka   and
another.   AIR   1989   SC   885
(Three Judges).
V   Bb)   Gangadhar   Janardan
Mhatre   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra. (2004) 7 SCC 768
v   Bc)   Fakhruddin   Ahmad   vs.
State   of   Uttaranchal   and
another 2008 Cr. L. J. 4377(SC)  
(B)  The   Magistrate   is   not
bound   by   the   conclusions
arrived at by the police even as
he   is   not   bound   by   the
conclusions   arrived   at   by   the
complainant   in   a   complaint.
The   Magistrate   can   take   into
account   the   statements   of
witnesses   examined   by   the
police during the investigation v Ca) M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd.
and   take   cognizance   of   the Vs.   State   of   Karnataka   and
offence   complained   of   and another.   AIR   1989   SC   885
 4

order   the   issue   of   process   to (Three Judges).

the   accused.   The   Magistrate
independently   apply   his  mind
to the facts emerging from the
investigation   and   cognizance
of the case, if he thinks fit, in
exercise   of   his   powers   under
Sec.   190(1)   (b),   Cr.   P.C.   and
direct   the   issue   of   process   to
the accused.
(v   Cb)   Gangadhar   Janardan
Mhatre   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra. (2004) 7 SCC 768
(v  Da)   Laxminarayan
Vishwanath   Arya   vs.State   of
Maharashtra.   2008   Cr.   L.   J.
1(Bom.) (FB).

(C)   There is no need to follow
the procedure laid down in Ss.
200   and   202,   Cr.   P.C.   for
taking   cognizance   of   a   case
under Sec. 190(1) (a), Cr. P.C.
though it is open to act under
Sec. 200 or Sec. 202, Cr. P. C.  Saldanha and ors. AIR 1980 SC
 
(D)  If the investigation under
Sec. 156(3), Cr. P.C. is ordered
police need not approach to the
Magistrate   for   order   of
arresting the accused.
(v  Ea)   S.N.Sharma   vs.   Bipen
Kumar Tiwari and ors. AIR 1970
SC 786.
(v  Eb) State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C.
326.
(v Ec) Divine Retreat Centre vs.
State of Kerala and others (2008)
3   SCC   542.   (Power   to
investigate   an   offence   is
exclusively   reserved   for   the
police)

(E)  The   Scheme   of

investigation   postulate
investigation   uncontrolled   by
the   Magistrate.   But   the
Magistrate   can   order
(v  Fa)   Sakiri  Vasu  Vs.  State   of
reopening  of   the  investigation
Uttar Pradesh and others (2008)
even   after   the   police   submits
2 SCC 409.
the final report as the power of
 5

the Magistrate to order further (v  Fb)   Union   of   India   Vs.

investigation   under   Sec.   156 Prakash   P.   Hinduja.   (2003)   6
(3), Cr. P.C. is an independent SCC 195.(a Magistrate cannot
power.   It   does   not   affect   the interfere   with   the
power   of   the   investigating investigation by the police)
officer   to   further   investigate
the   case   even   after
submissions of his report vide
Sec. 173(8), Cr. P.C. 

(F)  Even   if   an   FIR   has   been

registered   and   even   if   the
police   has   made   the (v  Ga)Central   Bureau   of
investigation,   or   is   actually Investigation.   Vs.   State   of
making   the   investigation, Rajasthan (2001) 3 SCC 333.
which   the   aggrieved   person (v  Gb)   Central   Bureau   of
feels   is   not   proper,   such   a
Investigation  vs. Rajesh Gandhi
person   can   approach   the 1997 Cr. L. J. 63(SC).
Magistrate   under   Sec.   156(3), (v  Gc)   Central   Bureau   of
Cr. P.C. and after satisfaction
Investigation   vs   Devendra   S.
order   a   proper   investigation
Doctor   2008   (2)   LJ.Soft.   162
and   take   suitable   steps   and
(Bom).
pass   such   order   as   necessary
(v  Gd) Gopal Govind Gharat vs.
for   ensuring   proper
State   of   Maharashtra.   2008   (4)
investigation.   (Though   he
LJ. Soft. (URC) 28.
cannot investigate himself.)
(v  Ge) State of Maharashtra vs.
Ibrahim   Adamwall   Patel.   2008
(G)  Party   cannot   ask   for
(4) LJ. Soft. 117.
investigation   by   a   particular
agency. The Magistrate cannot
order   investigation   by   any
particular agency.
(v  Ha)   Ram   Lal   Narang   Vs.
 6

right   and   duty   to   register State   (Delhi   Admn.)   AIR   1979

information   relating   to SC 1791, 
commission   of   a   cognizable
(v  Hb)   Prakash   Singh   Badal   v.
offence and duty to investigate
State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
the facts and circumstances of
the   case   and   to   submit   the
report   to   the   Magistrate   to
take the cognizance of offence.
(v Ja) M.C.Abraham vs/ State of
(J)   Investigation   ordered.   The
Maharashtra. 2003 (1) L.J. Soft.
Magistrate   cannot   direct   to
(SC) 5. 
submit report as per his views.

(K)   Investigation   under   Sec.

(v  Ka)   Dashrath   S/o   Pralhad
156 (3), Cr. P. C.   is ordered.
Chauhan   vs.   State   of
The   Magistrate   has   no   power
Maharashtra. 2000(4) Mah. L.J.
to   recall   that   order   on   the
573.
ground   that   police   did   not
submit report.

(v  La)   Swati   Sachin   Mahajan

(L)   Investigation   under
Sec.156 (3), Cr. P. C., would be
permissible   only   for   a
cognizable offence.  427.(U/S 494 IPC)
(M)   Private   complaint   –
Unless   the   Magistrate   goes
through   the   complaint,   its
nature   and   documents,   etc,   it
may   not   be   possible   for   the
(pagare)   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra 2007 (5) Mah. L. J.
(v  Lb)   Prakash   Singh   Badal   v.
State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1.
(v  Lc)   Sandeep   Rammilan
Shukla v. State of Maharashtra
2009 (1) MH. L.J. 97 (FB)
(v  Ma)   Manisha   w/o   Madhukar
(Dr)   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra.2008 (1) Mah. L.J.
130.
 7

Magistrate   to   decide   whether (v   Mb)   Sriniwas   Gundluri   and

he   should   proceed   under   Sec. others   v.   M/s   SEPCO   Electric
156   (3),   Cr.   p.   c.   or   Sec.   202, Power  Construction  Corporation
Cr.   p.   c.     It   cannot   be   said and   others   2010   CRI.   L.J.
cognizance is taken. 4457(SC)(Two JJ)

(N)   Magistrate   not   bound   to (v Na) Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane

pass any elaborate order while vs.   Chandrasen   Jagdevrao
exercising   the   powers   under Deshmukh. 2008 (5) LJ Soft. 48.
Sec.  156  (3),  Cr.  p.  c.     It was
proper   on   part   of   the
Magistrate to pass the cryptic
order   of   making   reference   for
investigation   under   Sec.   156
(3), Cr. P.C. (v  Oa)   Aleque   Padamsee   vs.
  Union   of   India   2007   (10)   LJ.
(O)   Any   information   relating Soft. (SC) 84 (Three Judges)
to   cognizable   offence   it   is
obligatory   on   part   of   police
officer to register the FIR. Non
registration of FIR by police ­
the   aggrieved   person   has
remedy   to   approach   to   the
Magistrate under Sec. 156 (3), (v   Pa).   Gopal   Das   Sindhi   and
Cr. P.C. others   vs.   State   of   Assam   and
   another. AIR 1961 SC 986 
(P) Magistrate is not bound to
take cognizance. He may send (v Qa). Ramesh Kumari vs. State
case   under   Sec.   156(3),   Cr.
(NCTof   Delhi)   AIR   2006   SC
P.C. 1322.
(v   Qb).   Lallan   Choudhary   vs.
(Q)   Cognizable   offence State of Bihar Air 2006 SC 3376.
disclosed – direction to register
the offence can be given.  (v   Ra)   Prakash   Singh   Badal   v.
 8

State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1

(   R)   Section   156   (3)   vests   a

discretionary   power   on
Magistrate   empowered   under
Section   190   to   order   an (v   Sa)   State   of   Bihar   v.   J.A.C.
investigation by a police officer Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554.
as contemplated in Section 156
(1)
(v Ta)    State   of   Bihar  v. J.A.C.
(S)   Section   156   (3)   does   not Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554;
empower a Magistrate to stop (v   Tb)   State   of   Haryana   v.
an   investigation   undertaken Bhajan   Lal   1992   Supp   (1)   SCC
by the police.  335.

(T) But in that case, power of
the   Magistrate   under   Section
156(3)   is   to   direct   further (v   Ua)   Gangadhar   Janardan
investigation   after   submission Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra
of a report by the investigating (2004)7 SCC 768'
officer under Section 173 (2) of (v   Ub)   Bhagwant   Singh   v.
the Code.  Commissioner of Police AIR 1989
SC 885
(U)   when   on   submission   of
police report under Section 173
(2)   Magistrate   decides   not   to
take   cognizance   and   to   drop
proceeding against all or some
of   the   accused,   informant   is (v   Va)   All   India   Institute   of
entitled   to   a   notice   and   an Medical   Sciences   Employees'
opportunity to be heard at the Union(Regd)   v.   Union   of   India
time   of   consideration   of   the (1996)11 SCC 582.
report.(Ss 173 (2), 169, 190 (1))
 9

(V)   information   to   police

regarding   commission   of
cognizable   offence.   No   action
taken   by   police.   Complainant
is   given   power   under   Section vi a) Yogiraj Vasantrao Survey v
190 R/W 200 of Cr. P.C., to lay State   of   Maharashtra   Cri.   Miss
the   complaint   before   the Application   No.   470/11   decided
Magistrate   concerned.   Then on 28/02/13 (BOM)
the   Magistrate   is   required   to
enquire   into   the   complaint  as
provided in Ch. XV of Cr. P.C.,
VI)   The   Magistrate   before
passing an order under Section
156   (3)   of   the   Code   ought   to
have   satisfy   himself/herself
that   the   averments   made   in
the complaint or petition filed
under Section 156 (3) disclose vii)   Bhushan   Kumar   v.   State
commission   of   cognizble (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC 424
offence   and   whether   the
prosecution would lie. Only in viii)   Rameshbhai   Pandurang
such   an   eventuality   it   is Hedau v State of Gujarat (2010)
permissible for the Magistrate 4 SCC 185
to   direct   investigation   under
Section   156   (3)   if   he   or   she
deems fit considering the facts
and circumstances of the case.
VII)While   taking   cognizance
under Section 204 of the Code
reasoned order not required.
VIII)   There   may   be
circumstances   where   the
Magistrate,   before   taking
cognizance of the case himself,
 10

chooses   to   order   a   simple

investigation   under   Section
156 (3) of the Code.
3(C)   .   Courses   open   to 1. Madhao   and   another   v.
Magistrate:­ State   of   Maharashtra
(A)   When   a   Magistrate (2013) SCC 615(Two JJ);
receives   a   complaint   he   is 2. CREF   Finance   Ltd.   v.
bound to take cognizance if the Shree   Shanthi   Homes   (P)
facts   alleged   in   the  complaint Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 467;
disclose   the  commission   of  an 3. Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh
offence. (1977) 4 SCC 459;
(B)   The   Magistrate   has 4. Devarapalli
discretion in the matter. Lakshminarayana Reddy v.
( C) In the case of a complaint Narayana   Reddy.   (1976)   3
regarding   the   commission   of SCC 252.
cognizable   offence,   the   power
under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.,
can   be   invoked   by   the
Magistrate   before   he   takes
cognizance of the offence under
Section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P.C.
(D)   If   he   does   so,   he   is   not
required   to   examine   the
complainant   on   oath   because
he   was   not   taking   cognizance
of any offence therein. 
(E) However,  if he once takes
such   conizanee   and   embarkes
upon   the   procedure   embodied
in   Chapter   XV,   he   is   not
competent   to   revert   back   to
the   pre­cognizance   stage   and
avail of Section 156 (3).
(F) When a Magistrate chooses
 11

to   take   cognizance   on
complainant  he can adopt any
of   the   following   alternatives.
(a)   He   can   peruse   the
complaint and if satisfied that
there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding he can straightway
issule   process   to   the   accused
but before he dose so he must
comply   with   requirements   of
Section   200   Cr.   P.C.,   and
record   the   evidence   of   the
complainant   and   his
witnesses.   (b)   The   Magistrate
can   postpone   the   isssue   of
process  and direct  an  enquiry
by himself. (c) The Magistrate
can   postpone   the   issule   of
process  and direct  an  enquiry
by   any   other   person   or   an
investigation by the police.
(G)   In   case   the   Magistrate
after   considering   the
statement   of   the   complainant
and   the   witnesses   or   as   a
result of the investigation and
the   enquiry   ordered   is   not
satisfied   that   there   are Motilal Songara v. Prem 
sufficient   grounds   for Prakash alias Pappu  AIR 2013 
proceeding he can dismiss the SC 2078, AIR 1968 SC 117, 
complaint. Dharmpal V State of Haryana 
(H) Where a Magistrate orders (2004) 13 SCC 9, (1989) 2 SCC 
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., 132, Ranjeet Singh v State of 
an   investigation   by  the   police Punjab  (1998 7 SCC 149 (Three 
 12

before taking cognizance under JJ)
Section   190   (1)   (a)     and
receives   the   report   thereupon
he can act on that report and
discharge   the   accused   or
straightway   issuse   process
against   the   accused   or   apply
his mind to the complaint filed
before   him   and   take   action
under Section 190 Cr. P.C.
(J)   The   Magistrate   is   not
bound   to   accept   final   report
filed   by   Investigation   Agency.
He   can   take   cognizance   and
issue   process   against   person
though   exonerated   by
Investigation Agency

 4. (D) Taking cognizance of
the offence.

1)   If   the   Magistrate   does   not a) Lakshminarayana   vs.   V.

order   investigation   by   the
police   under   Sec.   156(3),   and
does   not   reject   the   complaint
at   the   threshold,   then   the
Magistrate   may   decide   to
proceed under Chapter XV Cr.
P. C. (Sec. 202 to 203). If the
Magistrate applies mind to the
allegations   and   takes   judicial
notice   of   the   accusations   and
decide   to   proceed   under
Chapter   XV   Cr.   P.C.   he   can
Narayana,   AIR   1976   SC
1672.
b) Narsingh   Sas   Tapadia   vs.
Goverdhan     Das   Partani
AIR 2000  SC 2946,
c) S.   K.   Sinha,   Chief
Enforcement   Officer   vs.
Videocon   International
Limited   (2008)   2   SCC
492=2008 Cr .L.J.1636.
 13

then   said   to   have   taken

cognizance   of   the   offence.
Instead   of   proceeding   under
that   Chapter   takes   action   of
issuing   search   warrant   or
ordering   investigation   it
cannot   be   said   that   the
Magistrate   has   taken   the
cognizance of the offence. 

2)   Where   the   Magistrate

chooses   to   take   cognizance   of
the offence, he may adopt any
of the following alternatives.

a)   He   shall   examine   on   oath

the   complainant   and   the
witnesses,   if   any,   present.
( Sec. 200, Cr. P.C.)

Examination   of   the
complainant   and   the
witnesses   is   not   necessary
when

i) if   the   complaint   has

been made by a public
servant   acting   or
purporting   to   act   in
the   discharge   of   his
official duties or; 

ii) if   the   complaint   has

been made by a Court
or;
 14

iii) If   the   complaint   is

made over for inquiry
or   trial   by   another
Magistrate under Sec.
192, Cr. P.C. 

On   examining   the
complainant   and   the (a) Mohd.   Yousuf   vs.
witnesses   or   if   after Afaq   Jahan   and
perusing   the   averments   in another AIR 2006 SC
the complaint (in the case of 705.
a complaint filed by a public (b) Dilawar   Singh   vs.
servant   or   a   Court)   the State   of   Delhi.   AIR
Magistrate is of the opinion 2007 SC 3234. 
that   there   is   sufficient
ground for proceeding, then
he shall issue summons in a (a) CREF Finance Ltd. Vs. Sree
summons case and, if it is a Santhi   Homes   Pvt.   Ltd.     AIR
warrant   case   issue 2005 SC 4284
summons or warrant to the
accused.   (Sec.   204(1),   Cr.
P.C).

The   purpose   of   inquiry   or

investigation   under   Sec.
202, Cr. P.C. is also to help
the   Magistrate   to   decide
whether   there   is   sufficient
ground   for   proceeding
further. 

Rejection   of   complaint   at
this stage.
 15

After the stage of examination
under   Sec.   200   Cr.   P.C.   but
before   the   stage   of   inquiry   or
investigation   under   Sec.   202,
Cr. P.C., the appropriate mode
of terminating the proceedings
may   be   by   of   rejection   of   the
complaint   and   not   dismissal
under Sec.203 Cr. P.C. 

Inquiry/investigation   U/s
202 Cr. P.C.

  After   the  examination  of  the

complainant   under   Sec.   200
Cr.   P.C.   the   Magistrate   can
postpone   the   issue   of   process
against   the   accused     and   he
may; 
i) either himself conduct
an inquiry, or 
ii) Direct   an
investigation   by   a
police   officer   or   any
other   person   as   he
thinks fit (Sec. 202 (1),
Cr. P.C.).
Where   the   accused   is
residing   at   a   place   beyond
the   territorial   limits   of   the
Magistrate,   an   inquiry   by
the   Magistrate   or   a
 16

direction   for   investigation

under   Sec.   202   Cr.   P.C.   is
mandatory.   (after   the
amendment with effect from
23/6/2006)
Offence   exclusively   triable
by Sessions Court:­

(1)   Where   the   offence   alleged

in the complaint is one triable
exclusively   be   a   Court   of
Session, the Magistrate cannot
direct   an   investigation   under
Sec. 202(1), Cr. P.C. (clause (a)
of   the   proviso   to   Sec.   202(1),
Cr. P.C.)
(2) The Magistrate will have to
himself   conduct   an   inquiry
during the course of which he
shall   call   upon   the
complainant to produce all his
witnesses   and   examine   them
on   oath.   (Proviso   to   Sec.
202(2), Cr. P.C.)
(3)   In   all   complaints   other
than those made by a Court a
direction  for investigation  can
be   made   only   after   the
complainant   and   the
witnesses, if any, present have
been examined under Sec. 200,
Cr.   P.C.(clause   (b)   of   the
proviso to Sec.202(1), Cr. P.C.) 
(4) In the case of a complaint
 17

preferred   by   a   Court,   the

Magistrate   can   order
investigation   under   Sec.202
(1),   Cr.   P.C.   even   without
resorting to Sec. 200, Cr. P.C. 
(5) Under Sec. 202(1), Cr. P.C.,
it is open to the Magistrate to
himself   conduct   an   inquiry or
order an investigation.
(6)   The   statements   recorded
during an investigation under
Sec.202,   Cr.   P.C.   can   be  used
to   contradict   the   statement
under Sec. 145, to impeach his
credit   under   Sec.   155(3),   to
corroborate   his   testimony
under  Sec.157,   and  to   refresh
his memory under Sec. 159 of
the Evidence Act.  
5. (E) Issuing process after
inquiry/investigation
under Sec.202, Cr. P.C.

(1)   After   the   inquiry   or

investigation   under   Sec.
202(1), Cr. P.C. the Magistrate
is of the opinion that there is
sufficient   ground   for
proceeding, he shall then issue
summons   or   warrant   against
the under Sec. 204(1), Cr. P.C.
depending on the nature of the
case.
 18

Initiation   of   proceedings S.   K.   Sinha,   Chief

and   commencement   of Enforcement   Officer   vs.
proceedings:                    The Videocon   International
distinction   between   initiation Limited   (2008)   2   SCC
of   proceedings   under   Chapter 492=2008 Cr .L.J.1636.
XIV,   Cr.   P.C.   and
commencement   of  proceedings
under   Chapter   XVI,   Cr.   P.C.
has to be kept in mind. 
6.   (F)   Dismissal   after
inquiry/investigation
under Sec.202, Cr. P.C.
(1)   After   considering   the
statements   on   oath   of   the
complainant   and   the
witnesses,   if   any,   and   the
result   of   the   inquiry   or
investigation,   if   any,   the
Magistrate   is   of   the   opinion
that   there   is   no   sufficient
ground for proceeding, he shall
then   dismiss   the   complaint
after   briefly   recording   his
reasons for doing so.( Sec. 203,
Cr. P.C. ) 
7.  Four   principles   to   be
borne   in   mind   when   a
Magistrate   issue   summons
on the complaint: 1)   Smt.   Nagawwa   v.   Veeranna
(a)   when   allegations   prima Shiraligaappa   Konjalgi   and
facie   made   out   absolutely   no others AIR 1976 SC 1947.
case   or   does   not   disclose   any 2)   Anil   Madhok   v.   Prem   Maini
ingredients; Syndicate   Bank   and   another
 19

(b)     allegations   are   patently 1999 (1) MH. L.J. 11 (SB)

absurd   and   inherently
improbable;
(c   )   whether   the   discretion
exercised   by   Magistrate   in
issuing   process   is   capricious
and arbitrary;
(d)   complaint   suffers   from
fundamental legal defect such
as ­ for want of prosecution or
absence of complaint by legally
competent   authority   and   the
like.  
8.  Requirement   of   Petition
under Section 156 (3):
No   particular   format   is Panchabhai   Popotbhai   Butani
provided   for   a   petition   under and   others   v.   State   of
Section   156   (3)   because   it Maharashtra and others 2010 (1)
cannot be strictly construed as MH. L.J. 421(FB)
a complaint in terms of Section
2 (d) of the Code. But it must
contain   the   facts   constituting
ingredients   of   a   cognizable
offence
9. Format for a complaint:
Nomenclature   is Mohd.   Yousuf   vs.   Afaq   Jahan
inconsequential   and   there   is (Smt.) (2006) 1 SCC 627.
no   specific   format   for   a
complaint   being   made   to   a
Magistrate   contemplated
under   Section   2(d)   of     the
Code.
10. Contents of complaints:
Rajesh   Bajaj   v.   State   NCT   of
 20

Factual   foundation   for   the Delhi and ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259.

offence   has   to   be   led   in   the
complaint.   It   is   not   necessary
that   a   complaint   should
reproduce   all   the   ingredients
of   the   offence.   It   is   also   not
necessary   that   the   complaint
should state in so many words
the intention of the accused.
11. Condition precedent for
invoking   of   the   powers
under Section 156 (3): a) Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani
At   least   an   intimation   to   the and   others   v.   State   of
police   of   commission   of   a Maharashtra and others 2010 (1)
cognizable   offence   under MH. L.J. 421(FB);
Section   154   (1)   of   the   Code b)   Dharmeshbhai   Vasudevbhai
would be a condition precedent and   others   v.   State   of   Gujarat
for   invoking   of   powers   of   the and others. (2009) 6 SCC 576;
Magistrate   under   Section   156 c) Lalita Kumari v. Government
(3) of the Code. of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (2008)
However, there would be cases 7 SCC 164;
where   the   police   fail   to   act d) Sandeep Rammilan Shukla v.
instantly   and   the   facts   of   the State   of   Maharashtra   and   ors.
case   show   that   there   is (2009) 1 MH. L.J. 97(FB);
possibility   of   the   evidence   of e)   Laxminarayan   Vishwanath
commission   of   the   offence Arya   v.   State   of   Maharashtra
being   destroyed   and/or and ors. 2007 (5) MH. L.J. 7(FB)
tampered with or an applicant
could   approach   Magistrate
under   Section   156   (3)   of   the
Code   directly   by   way   of   an
exception as this is within the
discretion of  the Magistrate.
Seeking   directions   from
 21

Magistrate   to   direct   police   to

investigate   are   the   events
which   should   take   place   as   a
last measure.
12.  Obligation to register a
case:  Prakash Singh Badal and anr. v.
The   obligation   to   register   a State of Punjab and ors. (2007) 1
case   cannot   be   confused   with SCC 1.
the remedy if the same is not
registered and where it is not
registered,   Section   156   (3)   of
the   Code   vests   discretionary
power in a Magistrate, who is
competent   to   take   cognizable
of an offence under Section 190
of   the   Code,   to   order   an
investigaton   by   the   police
officer in accordance with law. 
13.  If   police   fails   to   take
action:               When   the a) Minu Kumari and anr v. State
information   is   laid   with   the of   Bihar  and  0rs.  (2006)  4  SCC
police   but   no   action   is   taken, 359;
the   complainant   is   given b) All India Institute of Medical
power under Section 190 read Sciences   Emploees'   Union   (Reg)
with Section 200 of the Code to v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC
make   complaint   with   the 582.
Magistrate   for   taking
cognizance   of   an   offence     and
the   Magistrate   himself   may
proceed   with   the   same   in
accordance with law.
14.  Taking   of   cognizance
and   issuance   of   process:

Taking   cognizance   is   not   the
same   thing   as   issuance   of
process.   Taking   cognizance   of
an   offence   under   Section   190
actually   requires   a   judicious
application   of   mind   by   the
Court   with   regard   to   the
contents   of   a   complaint   and
make up its mind whether the
offence alleged appears to have
been   committed   prima   facie.
Taking cognizance is different
from initiation of proceedings.
Taking of cognizance is thus a
sine   qua   non   or   condition
precedent   for   holding   a   valid
trial. Cognizance is taken of an
offence and not of an offender.
14   (a)  “cognizance”   occurring
in various Sections in the Code
is   a   word   of   wide   import.   It
embraces   within   itself   all
powers   and   authority   in
exercise   of   jurisdiction   and
taking   of   authoritarian   notice
of the allegations made in the
complaint or a police report or
any   information   received   that
22
a) Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani
and   others   v.   State   of
Maharashtra and others 2010 (1)
MH. L.J. 421(FB);
b)   State   of   Karnataka   and
another v. Pastor P. Raju (2006)
6 SCC 728;
c) R.R.Chari v. State of U.P. AIR
1951 SC 207;
d) Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v.
State  of  Maharashtra AIR 1971
SC 2372;
e)   Narayandas   Bhagwandas
Madhavdas v. State of W.B. AIR
1959 SC 1118;
f) Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar
(1993) 2 SCC 16;
g) State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid
(1995) 1 SCC 684;
h)   S.K.   Sinha,   Chief
Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International   Ltd.,   and   others
(2008) 2 SCC 492.
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia
v.   Shaaileshbhai   Mohanbhai
Patel.   2013   CR.   L.J   144   (SC)
(Three JJ)
 23

offence has been committed. In
the   context   of   Sections   200,
202,   and   203,   the   expression
'taking   cognizance'   has   been
used   in   the   sense   of   taking
notice of the complaint or the
first information report or the
information   that   offence   has
been committed on application
of   judicial   mind.   It   does   not
necessary   mean   issuance   of
process.
Inquiry   under   Section   202   of Vadilal   Panchal   v.   Dattatraya
the  Code  was   for  the  purpose Dulaji   Ghadigaonker   and
of   ascertaining   the   truth   or another AIR 1960 SC 1113.
falsehood   of   the   complaint,   I.
e.,   for   ascertaining   whether
there was evidence in support
of   the   complaint   so   as   to
justify the issuance of process
and   commencement   of
proceedings against the person
concerned.
The   object   of   provisions   of Chandra Deo Singh AIR 1963 SC
Section 202 was to enable the 1430 (Four JJ)
Magistrate to form an opinion
as   to   whether   process   should
be issued or not and to remove
from   his   mind   any   hesitation
that he may have felt upon the
mere perusal of the complaint
and   the   consideration   of   the
complainant's   evidence   on
oath.   An   accused   person   does
 24

not come into the picture at all
till process is issued.
The   scope   of   inquiry   by   the Smt.   Nagawwa   AIR   1976   SC
Magistrate   under   Section   202 1947
of   the   Code   is   extremely
limited   only   to   ascertainment
of the truth or falsehood of the
allegations   made   in   the
complaint   ­   (I)   on   the
materials   placed   by   the
complainant before the Court;
(ii)   for   the   limited   purpose   of
finding   out   whether   a   prima
facie  case   for   issue   of   process
has been made out; and (iii) for
deciding   the   question   purely
from   the   point   of   view   of   the
complainant   without   at   all
adverting   to   any  defence  that
the accused may have. In such
proceedings   the   accused   has
got  absolutely  no locus  standi
and is not entitled to be heard.
Taking   cognizance   did   not R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar
involve   any   formal   action   or Pradesh   AIR   1951   SC   207,
indeed action of any kind but Darshan   Singh   Ram   Kishan   v.
it   takes   place   no   sooner   a State  of  Maharashtra AIR 1971
Magistrate applies his mind to SC   2372,   (on   being   satisfied
the   suspected   commission   of about   the   allegations   in   the
an offence. complaint   ,if   proved,   would
constitute an offence, decides to
initiate   judicial   proceedings
against   the   alleged   offender   as
held   in   Kishun   Singh   (1993)
 25

2.SCC16).
As to when cognizance is taken Narayandas   Bhagwandas
of an offence will depend upon Madhavdas v. The State of West
the facts and circumstances of Bengal AIR 1959 SC 1118
each case and it is impossible
to   attempt   to   define   what   is
meant   by   taking   cognizance.
Issuing of a search warrant for
the purpose of an investigation
or   of   a   warrant   of   arrest   for
that   purpose   cannot   by
themselves be regarded as acts
by which cognizance was taken
of   an   offence.   Obviously,   it   is
only   when   a   Magistrate
applies   his   mind   for   the
purpose   of   proceeding   under
Section   200   and   subsequent
Sections   of   Ch.   XVI   of   the
Code  that  it can  be  positively
stated that he had applied his
mind and therefore had taken
cognizance. (Sections 190(1)(a),
200, 202 of the Code)  
Cognizance is taken at the Pastor   P.   Raju   AIR   2006   SC
initial   stage  when   the 2825 (Two JJ)
Magistrate applies his judicial
mind to the facts mentioned in
a   complaint   or   to   a   police
report   or   upon   information
received from any other person
that   an   offence   has   been
committed. 
The   issuance   of   process   is
 26

at a subsquent   stage  when

after considering the material
placed   before   it   the   Court
decides to proceed against the
offenders   against   whom   a
prima facie case is made out. 
15. Order to investigate:
While   a   Magistrate   can   order Abhinandan   Jha   v.   Dinesh
the   police   to   investigate   the Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117.
complaint he has no power to
compel   the  police  to  submit  a
charge­sheet on  a final  report
being submitted by the police.
In such cases a Magistrate can
either order re­investigation or
dispose   of   the   complaint
according to law.
16.  Nature   of   order   under
Section   156   (3)  :The   order Devarapalli   Lakshminarayana
under Section 156 (3) is in the Reddy   and   others   V.   Narayana
nature   of   a   peremptory Reddy and others. (1976) 3 SCC
reminder   or  intimation   to the 252
police to exercise their plenary
powers   of   investigation   under
Section 156 (1) of the Code. 
17. Distinction between the
complaint and information:
“Information”  is   a  wider term a)   Sheo   Pratap   Singh   vs.
than “complaint” and includes Emperor, AIR 1930 All 820;
any communication relating to b) Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani
the   commission   of   an   offence. and   others   v.   State   of
The   essential   difference Maharashtra and others 2010 (1)
between   a   complaint   and MH. L.J. 421(FB)
 27

information   is   that   a
Magistrate acts on a complaint
because   the   complainant   has
asked   him   to   act,   but   a
Magistrate acts on information
on his own initiative.
An information is a complaint
only   when   it   is   made   to   a
Magistrate. Information under
Section   154   given   to   a   police
officer of police orally and/or in
writing can be the basis for the
police   officer­in­charge   of
police   station   to   proceed   with
the matter.
18. Jurisdiction of Court: Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share
Summoning order  – challenge Shoppe 2010 CRI. L.J. 3848 (SC)
on   ground   of   want   of
jurisdiction   of   Court   to   try
case­ it must be raised before
trial   Court   by   filling   question
of   jurisdiction   before
proceeding further. 
19.  Examination   of Shivjee   Singh   v.   Nagendra
witnesses   named   in   the Tiwary   and  others  (2010)7  SCC
complaint: 578 (Two JJ)
Complainant   is   not   bound   to
examine   all   witnesses   named
in   the   complaint   or   whose
names   are   disclosed   in
response   to   order   passed   by
the   Magistrate.   Only   those
witnesses   are   required   be

examined   whom   complainant
considers material to make out
prima   facie   case   for   issue   of
process.   Sufficient   ground
means   satisfaction   that   a
prima   facie   case   is   made   out
against   the   accused   and   not
sufficient   ground   for   securing
his conviction.
20. Second complaint:
When second complaint would
be   maintainable.   (Sections
190,  202, 203, 204 Cr. P.C.)
21.  Distinction   between   the
provisions   156   (3)   and   200   of
the Code
22.  The   power   of   the
Magistrate   under   Section   156
(3)   to   order   investigation   by
the   police   have   not   been
touched   or   affected   by   S.   202
because   those   powers   are
exercised   even   before   the
cognizance is taken.
23.  No   jurisdiction   to   amend Beharam   S.   Doctor   v.   State   of
the   complaint   by   changing Maharashtra   2003   (4)   MH.L.J.
name of the accused
28
a)   Poonam   Chand   Jain   and
another v. 
Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631;
b) Pramatha Nath Talukdar case
AIR 1962 SC 876;
c) Jitender Singh v. Rangit Kaur
AIR 2001 SC 784;
d)   Hiralal   v.   State   of   U.P.   AIR
2009 SC 2380
Srinivas   Gundluri   v   SPECO
Electric   Powar   Construction
Corporation (2010) 8 SCC 206
a)   Anju   Choudhary   v   State   of
U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384
b) Mona Panwar v High Court of
Judicature   Allahabad     (2011)3
SCC 496
c) Dilawar Singh v State of Delhi
(2007) 12 SCC 641.
505
29