Smt Vimla and Others vs Smt. Babita and Another

R. Singh, J.—The wife has filed a complaint against her husband and inlaws u/s 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code in connection with her Stridhan. The Magistrate passed following order on it as appears from Annexure 2.

Seen the complaint, the matter requires thorough investigation, that is only possible thing. Police, S.O./S.H.O. Kotwali is directed to register the case and investigate.

It seems as if the above order has not been correctly given in the true copy. Any way the substance is clear that the Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter. Against it the husband and in-laws have filed this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. They say that the aforesaid order of the Magistrate dated 18-4-1987 and the complaint which is Annexure 1 should be quashed.

The complaint discloses a case. The question at this stage is not whether there is any truth in the allegations made, but the question is whether on the basis of the allegation an offence has been alleged to have been committed. The complaint docs show that Stridhaa of the wife has been misappropriated and she has been maltreated for dowry. So there is no ground for quashing the complaint, J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, .

The next argument is that the Magistrate could not have directed the police to investigate and it being a complaint he should have proceeded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contains Sections 200 to 203. The argument of the State counsel is that the Magistrate could have directed investigation u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure.

The power to order police investigation u/s 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The f- operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the power u/s 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1)(a), D.L. Reddy v. V.N. Reddy 1976 ACC 230.

In the case before us it is clear from the impugned order that the Magistrate saw the complaint and without taking cognizance of the case referred the matter to the police. This could be done u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate and this application deserves to be dismissed.

Order.

The application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.