Once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense, he cannot revert to pre-cognizance stages, preventing subsequent orders for FIR registration.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

[1] These two applications are filed on the same grounds raising same contentions and arising out of same facts. At the request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, both the matters are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are recorded from the lead matter being Criminal Misc. Application No.7940 of 2013.

[2] The application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 07.05.2013 by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.391 of 2013 and also praying for quashing of FIR filed with Katargam Police Station being C.R.No.I-61 of 2013.

[3] This Court vide order dated 31.05.2013 had admitted matter and granted interim relief in terms of para-9(c) by which the further investigation and all the proceedings pertaining to the aforesaid C.R. qua the present applicants were ordered to be stayed.

[4] At the outset, learned advocate has submitted that the application was filed on the limited ground that the judicial magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue the directions of registering an FIR and therefore, while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate has transgressed his jurisdiction and therefore, has pleaded in ground 5(f). Learned advocate submitted that the applicant had filed the application only on the question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but is not challenging the same on merits.

[4.1] Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has submitted however, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Lalitakumari v/s. State of Uttarpradesh, reported in , 2014 (2) SCC 1, as also on account of the provision contained in S.156(3) of cr.p.c. challenge to the impugned order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction will also not survive.

[4.2] Learned Advocate has raised a question of law based on the facts of this case by contending that upon receipt of written complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class had passed an order calling for the report from the police and therefore, had issued an order under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) thereby taking cognizance of the offense and therefore, the impugned order directing filing of an FIR would amount to going back to the pre-cognizance stage which is not permissible as per the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court.

[5] The question of law raised by the learned advocate for the applicant though not pleaded in the application, the same is permitted to be raised and at this stage with necessary oppurtunity to the respondents . learned advocate has submitted that the case be dealt with purely on this question alone and the applicant is not contesting the same on merits.

[6] The facts therefore, necessary for the purpose of dealing with the present applications are that the respondent No.2 had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.391 of 2013 with the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.3) at Surat, praying, interalia, for an order under Section 156(3) of the Code seeking direction to register an FIR to the concerned police station for offense alleged against the four accused mentioned in the complaint which included the present two applicants. The allegations are in connection with the offenses under Sections 406 , 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC.

[6.1] Pursuant to the complaint thus received, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed an order dated 16.04.2013, wherein the police was directed to submit a report on or before 24