# [1978] 1 S.C.R. 615 - **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 615 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1977-10-05 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1976 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P. S. Kailasam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1978-1-s-c-r-615-7302 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote 615 Criminal Procedure Code (Act fl ·of 1974), 1973, sections 156(3), 190, 200, 202 and 204, scope and ambit of. Words and phrases-"Taking cognizance", meaning of. A B A criminal case registered by the police officer, Police Station Guru Har Sahai, on the basis of F.l.R. filed by Avinash Chandra against Mohd. Sadiq and others for having caused the murder of one Balbir Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions. A cross objection was filed before in the court of Judicial C Magistrate First Class, Ferozepore on 30th December 1974 by the respondent Kisbore Singh, the brother of the deceased Balbir Singh containing a counter version of the occurrence meiltioned in the case registered by the police. On receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate the case u /s. 156 ( 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his order dated 1-1-197 5. The police submitted a finai report on 8-3·1975 indicating that no case was made out against the accused. The court, after considering the report on 2nd April 1975, ordered that notice may be issued to the complainant to appear before him. The statement of the complalnant and his witnesses were recorded on D 22nd May 1975. On 23rd May 1975. the Magistrate issued process against the accused and summoned them u/ss. 304/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Ccxlc. The aCcused-appellants moved the High Court for quashing the order of the f\.1agistratc on the ground that the Magistrate having once ordered investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Code \Vas not competent to revive the complaint and issue process against the accused. The High Court held that no case for quashinJ.! the order of the Magistrate was made out inasmuch as the Magistrate had issued process against the accused after taking due cognizance of the case and applying E hi~ mind and recording the statement of the complainant. Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 1-IBLD : ( 1) The action tak-en by the Magistrate was fully supported in law and be did not commit any error in recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter issuing process against the appel1ants. [623-D] (2) The following legal propositions emerge on a careful consideration of F the facts and circumstances of the case : (i) That a Magistrate can order investigation u/s. 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is ·to say, before taking cognizance u/s. 190, 200 and 204 and when a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14, he is not entitled in law to order any investigation u/s. 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to s. 204, he can order investigation by the police which would be in the nature of any inquiry as contemplated by s. 202 of the Code. (ii) Where a Magistrate ·chooses to take cognizance, he can adopt any -of the following alternatives : (a) (b) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straighta\V3.y issue process to the accused but before be does so, he must comply wUh the requirements of s. 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses; The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an inquiry by himself; G H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978) l S.C.R. A ( c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an _inquiry by any other person or an investigation by the pobce. (iii) In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses as a result of investigation and the inquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint. B (iv) Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance u/s. 156(3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon, he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightway issue process against the accrued or apply bis mind to the complaint filed before him and take action u/s. 190. c D E F G H The present case is ## Text • • - TULA RAM & ORS. v . KISHORE SINGH October 5, 1977 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 615 Criminal Procedure Code (Act fl ·of 1974), 1973, sections 156(3), 190, 200, 202 and 204, scope and ambit of. Words and phrases-"Taking cognizance", meaning of. A B A criminal case registered by the police officer, Police Station Guru Har Sahai, on the basis of F.l.R. filed by Avinash Chandra against Mohd. Sadiq and others for having caused the murder of one Balbir Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions. A cross objection was filed before in the court of Judicial C Magistrate First Class, Ferozepore on 30th December 1974 by the respondent Kisbore Singh, the brother of the deceased Balbir Singh containing a counter version of the occurrence meiltioned in the case registered by the police. On receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate the case u /s. 156 ( 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his order dated 1-1-197 5. The police submitted a finai report on 8-3·1975 indicating that no case was made out against the accused. The court, after considering the report on 2nd April 1975, ordered that notice may be issued to the complainant to appear before him. The statement of the complalnant and his witnesses were recorded on D 22nd May 1975. On 23rd May 1975. the Magistrate issued process against the accused and summoned them u/ss. 304/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Ccxlc. The aCcused-appellants moved the High Court for quashing the order of the f\.1agistratc on the ground that the Magistrate having once ordered investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Code \Vas not competent to revive the complaint and issue process against the accused. The High Court held that no case for quashinJ.! the order of the Magistrate was made out inasmuch as the Magistrate had issued process against the accused after taking due cognizance of the case and applying E hi~ mind and recording the statement of the complainant. Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 1-IBLD : ( 1) The action tak-en by the Magistrate was fully supported in law and be did not commit any error in recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter issuing process against the appel1ants. [623-D] (2) The following legal propositions emerge on a careful consideration of F the facts and circumstances of the case : (i) That a Magistrate can order investigation u/s. 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is ·to say, before taking cognizance u/s. 190, 200 and 204 and when a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14, he is not entitled in law to order any investigation u/s. 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to s. 204, he can order investigation by the police which would be in the nature of any inquiry as contemplated by s. 202 of the Code. (ii) Where a Magistrate ·chooses to take cognizance, he can adopt any -of the following alternatives : (a) (b) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straighta\V3.y issue process to the accused but before be does so, he must comply wUh the requirements of s. 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses; The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an inquiry by himself; G H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978) l S.C.R. A ( c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an _inquiry by any other person or an investigation by the pobce. (iii) In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses as a result of investigation and the inquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint. B (iv) Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance u/s. 156(3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon, he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightway issue process against the accrued or apply bis mind to the complaint filed before him and take action u/s. 190. c D E F G H The present case is clearly covered by proposition No. (iv). [62.3E-H, 624A-C] (3) There is no special charm or any magical formula in the expression "taking cognizance" which merely means judicial application Of the mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further action. What s. 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate take!'l copjzance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegation5 .m&de in the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. The court prescribes several modes in which a complaint can be disposeil of after taking cognizance. While a Magistrate can order the police to investigate the complaint, it bas no power to compel the police to submit a chargesheet on a final report being submitted by the police. In such a case, a Magistrate can either order reinvestigation or dispose of the complaint according to law. [619E-F, 620B] Abhlnandan Iha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3 SCR 668, reiterated. Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of West Bengal [1960] I SCR 93 at 106; R. R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1951] SCR 312 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal. 437, referred to. ( 4) Sections 190 and 156 ( 3) are mutually exclusive and work in totally different spheres. The position is that even if a Magistrate receive~ a complaint u/s 190, he can act u/s 156(3) provided that he does not take cognizance. Chapter 12 and Chapter 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code subserve two different purposes; one pre-cognizance action and the other post-cognizance action. While Chapter 14 containing s. 190 d""1s with post-cognizance stage. Chapter 12, so far as Magistrate is concerned, deals with pre-cognizance stage. that is to say, once a Magistrate starts acting u/s. 190 and the provisions following. he cannot resort to s. 156(3). [620D-E. 622A] · Devarpalll Lakshminarayana Reddy &: Ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. [1976] Supp. S.C.R. 524; Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 98~ and Jamuna Singh & Ors. v. Bhadai Sah [1964] SCR 37 at 41, referred to. ( 5) The provisions of s. 202 of the Code debar a Magistrate from directing investigation on a complaint where the offence charged is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. But the Magistrate's powers u/s. 156(3) of the Code to order investigation by the poli~ have not been touched or affected by s. 202 because these powers are exerc1~ed even before . cognizance is taken. Section 202 would apply only to cases where the Magistrate has taken cogniz.ance and chooses to inquire into the complaint either himself or through any other agency. But there. may be circumstances as in the .Present case where the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the case must himself chooses to order a pure and simple investigation ufs. 156(3) of the Code. Havini done so, the Magistrate can proceed with the complaint according to the provisions of "· 190, 200 and 204, of the Code after receipt of the final report by the Police. There is absolutely no bar to such a cours<:..being adopted by the Magistrate. [620H, 621B-C] • • • ··· .... J '1 . . ' -. • •• TULA RAM v. KISHORE SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.) 617 (6) In the instant case; A (a) as the allegations made against the accused made out a caaa exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, tho Magistrate was r)early debarred from ordering any investigation but he was not debarred from making ,my inquiry himself into the truth of the . complaint. (b) The Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the case and ordered investigation by the police u/s 156(3) before applying his mind B to the complaint. This being the position, it was always open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of tho complaint and dispose it of according to law, that is to say, according to provisions of ss. 190, 200 and 202. In view of the facts in the present case he was prohibited from directing any investigation but he could take other steps. [621F, 622H, 623A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1976. C From the Judgment and Order dated 7-10-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. D. No. 2237-M or 1975. D. Mookerjee, S. N. Mehta, A. S. Sohal and Uma Dutta for the Appellants. Harbatis Singh for th~ Respondent. The Judgment of the Court wa·s delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Whether or not a Magistrate after receiving a complaint and a.fttt directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to. as the D code) and on receipt of the final report from the police can issue E notice to the complainant, record his statement and the statements of other witnesses and then issue processes under section 204 of the Code is the question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal. This is an appCal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 134(1) (c) of the Cons~itution . The answer to the proposition mentioned above would naturally depend on the true and proper interpretation of the scope and ambit of sections 156(3), 190, 200 F 202 and 204 of the Code . Defore embarking on this enquiry it may also be necessary to consider the legal import and significance of the term "taking cognizance" as used in sections 190, 200 and 202 of the Code. Before however considering the various aspects of the matter it may be necessary to summarise ~ facts which have led to the enquiry .in the appeal before G us. A Criminal case was registered by the Police Officer, Police Station . Guru Har Sahai on the basis of F.I.R. filed by A vinash Chandra against Mohd. Sadiq and others for having caused the murder of one Balbir Singh. This case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Committing Magistrate. A cross complaint appears to have been filed before in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Ferozepore on ~O-~e.mber,. 1.974 by Kishore Si!lgh tlte brother of the d~eased Bal- , .-111111,mta1mn~ a counter version of occurrence mentioned in the H A B c D E F G H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978) 1 s.c.R. case registered by the police. On receipt of the complaint the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate the case under section 156(3) of \the Code by his order dated 1.1.1975. The police submitted a final report on 8.3.1975 indicating that no case was made out against the accused. The Court after considering the report on 2nd April, 1975 ordered that notice may be issued to the complainant t.o ap~ before him. Consequently, the complainant appeared along with his witnesses before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded on 22nd May, 1975. On 23rd May, 1975 i.e. the nex.t day the Magistrate issued process against the accused by directing a non-bailable warrant against the accused and summoned them under section 304/ 149 and 148 of the I.P.C. The accused appellants moved the High Court for quashing the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate having once ordered investigation under section 156(3)of the Code was not competent to revive the complaint and issue process against the accused. The High Court held that no case for quashing the order of the Magistrate was made out inasmuch as the Magistrate had issued process · against the accused after taking due cognizance of the case and applying his mind and recording the statement of the complainant. Thereafter the appellants prayed for a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court which was granted. We may mention at the out set that we are not at all coD.cerncd v.ith the merits of the case and the learned counsel Mr. D. Ivlukhcrjee appearing for the appellants has argued only a pure point of Jaw before us. He lias contended that the Magistrate after having referred the maller for investigatbn to the police was not at all in law entitled to revive the complaint when the report was in favour of the accused. The Magistrate could at the most order re-investigation but could not have acted on the complaint which merged in the investigation by the poJice and lost its complete identity. Mr. Harbans Singh, counsel for the respondent however submitted that the Magistrate had directed investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code obviously before taking cognizance and after receiving the report he was .not debarred from taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint filed by Kishorc Singh in accordance with law. The question as to what is me.a.nt by taking cognizance is no Jonger res integra as it has been decided by several decisions of this Court. As far back as 1951 this Court in the case of R. R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh(!) observed as follows:- "Taking cognizance docs not involve any form.al action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence". While considering the question in greater detail this Court endorsed the observations of Justice Das Gupta in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal A1Jairs, West Bengal v. Aba12i K11mnr Banerjee(2 ) which was to the following effect (1) [1951) S.C.R. 312. (2) A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 347. -~· w.. / ': (I) [1960] I S.C.R. 93, 106. 3-951SCI/77 A 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l s.c.R. must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition but must have done so for the purpose ol proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter-proceding under section 200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under section 202". It is now well se1tled by the decision of this Court in Abhinandan B Iha & Ors. Dinesh Mishra(') that while a Magistrate can order the police to investigate the complaint it has no power to compel the police to submit a charge-sheet on a final report being submitted by the police. In such cases a Magistrate· can either order re-investigatio_n or dispose of the complaint according to law. Analysing the scheme of the Code on the subject in question it C would appear that section 156(3) which runs thus: D E F G H "Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned." appears in Chapter 12 which deals with information to th:: Police and the powers of the police to investigate a crime. This section is therefore placed in a Chapter different from Chapter 14 which deals with initiation of proceedings against an accused person. It is, therefore, clear that sections 190 and 156(3) are mutually exclusive and work in totally different spheres. In other words, the position is that even if a Magistrate receives a complaint under section 190 he can act under section 156 ( 3) provided that he does not take cognizance. The position, therefore, is that while Chapter 14 deals with post cognizance stage Chapter 12 so far as the Magistrate is concerned deals with pre-cognizance stage, that is to say once a Magistrate starts acting under section 190 and the provisions following he cannot resort to section 156(3). Mr. Mukherjee vehemently contended before us that in view of this essential distinction once the Magistrate chooses to act under section 156 ( 3) ol. the Code it was not open to him to revive the complaint, take cognisance and issue process against the accused. Counsel argued that the Magistrate in such a cas.e has two alternatives and two alternatives only either he could direct re-investigation if he was not satisfied with the final report of the police or he could straightaway issue process to the accused under section 204. In the instant case the Magistrate has,.done neither but has chosen to proceed under section 190 ( 1) (a) and section 200 of the Code and thereafter issued process against the accused under section 204. Attractive though the argument appears to be we are however unable to accept the same. In the first place, the argument is based on a fallacy that when a Magistrate orders investigation under section 156(3) the complaint disappears and goes out of existence. The provisions of section 202 of the present Code debar a Magistrate from directing investigation on a complaint where the offence charged is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. On the allegations of the complainant the offence complained of was clearly triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions (2) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 668. , - • +. ' + • ; - TULA RAM V. KISHORE SINGH (Fazal Ali,!.) 621. :and therefore it is obvious that the Magistrate was completely debarred from directing the complaint filed before him to be investigated by the police under section 202 of the Code. But the Magistrate's powers under section 156(3) of the Code to order investigation by the police have not been touched or affected by section 202 because these powers are exercised even before cognizance is taken. In other words, section 202 would apply only to cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance and chooses to enquire into the complaint either himself or through any other agency. But there may be circumstances as in the present case where the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the case himself chooses to order a pure :and simple investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code. The <1uestion is, having done, so is he debarred from proceeding with the rnmplaint according to the provisions of sections 190, 200 and 204 <>f the Code after receipt of the final report by the police? We see :absolutely no bar to such a course being adopted by the Magistrate. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint. Even though the complaint was filed by the Magistrate, .he did not pass any order indicating that he bad applied his judicial mind to the facts of the case for the purpose of proceeding with the .complaint. What he had done was to keep the complaint aside and order investigation even before deciding to take cognizance on the basis of the complaint. After the. final report was received· the Magistrate decided to take cognizance of the case on the basis of the complaint and accordingly issued notice to the complainant. Thus, it was Gn 2nd April, 1975 that the Magistrate