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

2. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon alleging commission of various cognizable offences by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein and praying that, the police be ordered to investigate into the matter as contemplated under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, on 25.9.2012, passed an order on the said application to the effect that, he needed some clarification from the mouth of the complaint on the point of the alleged offences. He, therefore, directed the complainant ‘to adduce his evidence at the pre-cognizance stage’. Pursuant to this order, the applicant was examined by the Magistrate on oath. Thereafter, the Magistrate passed an order purportedly under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate into the matter. The respondent nos.2 and 3 challenged the said order by filing a Revision Application in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate ordering investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The only ground on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order to investigate the matter as passed by the Magistrate was that after having examined the complainant on oath, the Magistrate could not have switched back to the stage as contemplated under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not have ordered an investigation into the matter under the said provision.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision, the petitioner has approached this court by invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also heard the learned APP.

6. The legal position that after examining the complainant on oath as contemplated under section 200 of the Code, the Magistrate cannot pass an order under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is well settled. That an order under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be passed only at the pre-cognizance stage and that examining the complainant on oath under the provisions of Section 200 of the Code amounts to taking cognizance of the offence/s in question is also well settled. (See i]. Devarapalli L. Reddy V. Vs. Narayan Reddy reported in 1976 SC 1672 & ii] Jamuna Singh Vs. Bhadai Shah reported in 1964 SC 1541).

7. There are, however, some other aspects of the matter which need a mention. The order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Magistrate does not specifically state that the complainant was to be examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Code. The order makes a curious reading and indicates that examination was sought for by the Magistrate for the purpose of satisfying whether an order u/s 156 (3) of the Code should be passed or not. This was, clearly, not permissible. Since the complainant was thereafter examined on oath on the basis of the complaint/application made before the Magistrate, such examination must be treated as having been done under the provisions of Section 200 of the Code. It therefore follows that, the order directing an investigation by the police under the provisions of section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed thereafter by the Magistrate was not legally sound and therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the revisional court.

8. The contention advanced by Mr. Warmaa, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner never wanted to have the application made by him treated as a complaint and that, prayer made by the petitioner before the Magistrate was only for an order of investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Warmma, subm