The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Magistrate can only direct an officer in charge of a police station to conduct an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C., and referrals to superior police officers or non-police station branches are improper and illegal.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law on the basis of identical facts were raised by the Advocates appearing for the petitioners, after hearing both the parties, these petitions are disposed off by this order.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case in Cri. P. No. 3650 of 1939 are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they are attached to Navodaya Sahakara Bank Limited, Malleswaram, Bangalore in one capacity or the other and they committed fraudulent acts in their dealing with the Bank, thereby defrauding the Bank to the extent of Rs. 80 lakhs and therefore, the in charge Secretary of the Bank filed a complaint against the partners/proprietors of those business establishments in p. C. R. No. 381 of 1998 on the file of the 7th Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City alleging that they committed offence punishable under Sections 403, 420, 464, 511 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court was pleased to refer the complaint to the Inspector of Police, Malleswaram Police Station, bangalore City under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30-3-1998. However, the learned Magistrate recalled the order on 24-4-1998 and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central crime Branch, Bangalore to investigate into the case while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) ON the basis of this reference, Central Crime Branch, N. T. Pet, bangalore registered the case against 8 persons named in the private complaint in Crime No. 249 of 1998 at Malleswaram Police Station, bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 420, 464, 511 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet against 8 persons named in the private complaint as well as the petitioners who were not the accused in the private complaint filed by the Bank against whom the bank had no control, sought for any action whatsoever for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. This order is questioned in this petition.

( 4 ) IN Cri. P. No. 4015 of 2001, the facts of the case are that the respondent therein filed a private complaint before the I Additional metropolitan City Additional Court at Bangalore under Sections 380, 383, 423, 441, 442, 464, 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code on 19-10-2000. The Court was pleased to refer this complaint to Central crime Branch under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. for investigation and report. The petitioner has questioned this order passed by the Court referring it to C. C. B. under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) THE facts leading to Cri. P. No. 4370 of 2001 are that 2nd respondent filed a complaint in P. C. R. No. 933 of 1999 before the learned IV additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. on 2-11-1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case to the D. C. P. (Crime), C. C. B. for investigation and to submit report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. This order is questioned in this petition.

( 6 ) IN Cri. P. No. 1372 of 2001, the facts leading to this case are that the first respondent presented a private complaint before the IV Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City against the petitioner alleging against the conduct of the petitioner making incense sticks manufactured by him by packing the same in a container having a registered artistic code with the expression EENADU has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Copyright Act and Trade and Merchandise marks Act.

( 7 ) ON 19-4-2001 on receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and has made a reference to the said complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of