Mrs. Bhatkar, J.

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The Applicants challenge the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate the matter pursuant to the complaint filed by Respondent No.1

3. Respondent No.1, the original complainant, has filed a complaint against the petitioner accused in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune alleging that the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy have been committed by the accused in respect of the execution of the power of attorney, development agreement and conveyance in respect of the land in village Mundwa, District Pune. Prior to this complaint to the Magistrate, he has filed a written complaint before the police. However, police did not take any cognizance of the same. Hence, a private complaint was filed on 10.5.2010, [at exhibit I to the petition] requesting issuance of process under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed order on the same day i.e., 10.5.2010 that the private complaint u/s 120B/419, 420, 426, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal code be registered and put up for verification. On 22.6.2010, the next date learned Magistrate ordered investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. A short point involved in this petition, is, for our consideration. Whether order dated 10.5.2010, passed by the learned Magistrate amounts to taking cognizance of the offences or not?

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and gave directions to register the complaint and place the matter for verification; thereafter the learned Magistrate cannot go back to pre-cognizance stage and pass order u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said order is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel relied on the judgments in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 252); Tula Ram & Ors. vs. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459)and Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. vs. M/s. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.1377 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3267 of 2010 & anr).

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the earlier order does not disclose that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter but has specifically fixed the matter for verification i.e., the examination of the complainant. The learned Counsel argued that in the absence of verification of the complainant, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued process under the relevant sections. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the learned Magistrate may be said to have taken a step towards issuance of process and thought of issuing process and he kept the matter for verification. However, on the next date, he did not call for verification of the complainant but opted to invoke the powers u/s 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the police to investigate the matter. Under such circumstances, the order is not illegal.

7. Let us examine the procedure step by step to be followed by the Magistrate when a private complaint is filed before him. A complaint can be filed requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence only u/s 190 of the Cr. P.C. As the complaint is received by him, the Magistrate has two options – firstly, he can take cognizance of the offence and to go for verification by examining the complainant and issue process u/s 204. If the Magistrate on taking cognizance, thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or by such other persons u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. Issuance of process and taking cognizance are two different stages. Cognizance precedes issuanc