This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 13.08.2007 in C.C.SR.No.5108 of 2007 by which the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, referred the private complaint lodged by the second respondent herein to the Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and report.

The complainant-second respondent herein, who is a Practicing Advocate, filed the present complaint against the petitioner and also against Smt.Sonia Gandhi, President, Indian National Congress (Congress-I). The allegations made therein, in a nutshell, are as follows:

That on 14.05.2007 he personally saw the tri-coloured Flag belonging to Congress-I Party containing the photo images of Smt.Sonia Gandhi (A.2), Late Rajiv Gandhi, Dr.Y.Rajasekhar Reddy (the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh), Rahul Gandhi (Member of Parliament) and K.Kesava Rao (A.1), the President of Congress Committee-I (INC) of Andhra Pradesh, along with symbols of ‘Hand’ in the middle of the Flag and the said Flag was resembling the Indian National Flag. Having seen the misutilisation of the National Flag, he was very much annoyed for the usage of Tri-colour Flag in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1981 (for short ‘the Act’), issued a notice on 18.05.2007 to the accused not to use the Tri-colour flag as their party flag, against which, the second accused gave a reply dated 15.06.2007 acknowledging the receipt of notice and also to have noted the suggestions of the complainant. But no steps were taken by either of the accused for removal of the Tri-colour flag. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed the present complaint before the learned Magistrate seeking to punish the accused under the provisions of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended by the provisions of Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2003.

When the said complaint is filed before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the same was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 13.08.2007 for investigation and report. The said order of the learned Magistrate was squarely published in the News Papers and was also telecasted in Media. The petitioner having come to know about the same filed the present Criminal Petition and obtained an order of stay of further proceedings. In fact, in view of the stay granted by this Court no case is registered and still F.I.R is yet to be registered for the purpose of investigation.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence while so, the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is erroneous and the same should be quashed.

The respondent counsel appeared before the Court in the first hearing and subsequently even after repeated adjournments, he failed to appear before the Court.

The impugned order runs as follows:

“Complainant present. At the request of the Counsel for Complainant, the complaint is referred to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for investigation under Sec.156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code and report. Call on 28th September, 2007”.

On filing of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is empowered either to forward the same to concerned Police for investigation or to take cognizance of the same and proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 200, 202 and 203 Cr.P.C. Such forwarding of complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is a pre-cognizance stage wherein the learned Magistrate is not taking cognizance of the offence but only forwarding the complaint for the purpose of investigation. This Court is of the view th