The main legal point established in the judgment is the vigilance required of the Magistrate in addressing the issue of Sec. 156(3) and the duty of the police officer to investigate cognizable cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for quashment of the complaint in PCR No.107/2019 and consequently registration of the case in FIR No.353/2019 pending before the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura District and so also seeking quashment of the order dtd. 5/10/2019 passed in the aforesaid criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant against the accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri D.P. Mahesh for petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, who appears before court physically and so also the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/Syed Babajan is the complainant who initiated criminal prosecution against Accused Nos.1 to 4 vide Annexure-"A". By exercising power under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli, had referred the said complaint to the Bagepalli P.S. for investigation and to submit a report thereon, and awaiting the report by 3/1/2020. Subsequent to referring the case to the police having jurisdiction to proceed for investigation, the Bagepalli Police have registered the case in Cr.No.353/2019 by recording an FIR dtd. 24/10/2019 vide Annexure-"C".

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of Priyanka Srivatsava and another Vs. State of UP & Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed the issues and the scope of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Ss. 340 to 344 as regards an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of FIR, wherein it is held that it must be supported by an affidavit. In Head Note B of the said judgment, it is held that -

"Addressing the issue of Sec. 156(3) - duty and approach of Magistrate while exercising power under Sec. 156(3) - preconditions to be satisfied - Law clarified - Prevention of abuse of process -- Vigilance required of Magistrate"

4. In this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners who is present before court physically mainly concentrated on Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment relating to the concept of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and so also the order to register an FIR for offences mentioned in the application and also Sec. 156 of Cr.P.C. relating to the police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. Sec. 156 Cr.P.C. states that, any officer in charge of a Police Station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

5. In the judgment cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred several decisions such as:

(1) RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT ((2015) 6 SCC 439))

(2) LALITA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P. ((2014) 2 SCC 1))

(3) MADHAO vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ((2013) 5 SCC 615))

(4) ANIL KUMAR vs. M.K. AIYAPPA ((2013) 10 SCC 705))

(5) MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA vs. SHAILESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL ((2012) 10 SCC 517))

(6) PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA vs. STATE OF U.P. (REVERSED) ((CRL.MISC.WP No.24561/2011 DECIDED ON 23/12/2011 (ALL))

(7) MAKSUD SAIYED vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ((2008) 5 SCC 668))

(8) DILAWAR SINGH vs. STATE OF DELHI ((2007) 12 SCC 641))

(9) MOHD. YOUSUF vs. AFAQ JAHAN ((2006) 1 SCC 627))

(10) CREF FINANCE LTD. vs. SHREE SHANTHI HOMES (P) LTD ((2005) 7 SCC 467))

(11) P. SUNDARRAJAN vs. R. VIDHYA SEKAR ((2004) 13 SCC 472))

(12) DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY vs. V. NARAYANA REDDY ((1976) 3 SCC 252))

These judgments relate to the concept of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and so also the power of the Police Officer under Sec. 156, which is stated in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment.

6. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners is that civil in nature of the case between the complainant and the accused has turned into criminal in nature with the initiation of the case in PCR No.107/2019 by the complainant against the a