IMPORTANT POINT
Whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating same as F.I.R. and comply with requirement of Rules concerning investigation.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. On February 18, 1988 the appellant filed a complaint against the three respondents, who are her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code I.P.C. for short by them. On that complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) directing the police to register a case and investigate into the same. Pursuant to the said direction Thaneswar Police Station registered a case being FIR No. 61 of 1988 and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (police report) against the three respondents under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the said charge-sheet and thereafter framed charge against the three respondents under Section 406 I.P.C. only as, according to the learned.

Magistrate, the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was allegedly committed in the district of Kamal. Against the framing of the charge the respondents moved the Sessions Judge in revision, but without success.

3. Thereafter on January 29, 1994 the appellant filed another complaint against the respondents under Section 498A IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamal and on this complaint the learned Magistrate passed a similar order under Section 156(3) of the Code for registration of a case and investigation. In compliance with the order, FIR No. 111 of 1994 was registered by the Karnal Police Station and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the three respondents under Section 498A I.P.C.; On that charge sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offence and later on framed charge against them in accordance with Section 240 of the Code.

4. While the above two cases were being tried, the respondents filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for quashing of their proceedings on the ground that the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Kurukshetra and Karnal directing registration of cases in purported exercise of their power under Section 156(3) of the Code were patently wrong and consequently all actions taken pursuant thereto were illegal. The contention so raised found favour with the High Court; and by the impugned judgment it quashed the orders of the Chief Magistrates of Kurukshetra and Karnal dated February 18,1988 and January 29,1994 respectively, pursuant to which cases were registered by the police on the complaints of the appellant, and the entire proceedings of the two cases arising therefrom. According to the High Court, under Section 156(3) of the Code a Magistrate can only direct investigation by the police but he has no power to direct 'registration of a case'. In drawing the above conclusion, it relied upon the judgments of this Court in Gopal Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assam1, and Tula Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh2, and some judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, according to it, followed the above two decisions of this Court.

5. In our considered view, the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable as it has not only failed to consider the basic provisions of the Code but also failed to notice that the judgments in Gopal Das (supra), and Tula Ram (supra), have no relevance whatsoever to the interpretation or purport of Section 156(3) of the Code. The earlier judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which have been followed in the instant case also suffer from the above two infirmities.

6. Coming first to the relevant provisions of the Code, Section 2(d) defines 'complaint' to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence, but does not incl