B. Kemal Pasha, J.

At what stage, the court of a Magistrate is taking cognisance of the offences in a private complaint?

(2) Can the court of a Magistrate proceed to the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C., in a case covered by Section 188 Cr.P.C.?

(3) Is a private complaint, in which the only relief sought for is the one under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., maintainable?

(4) What is the course of action that can be taken by the court of a Magistrate, in a case covered by Section 188 Cr.P.C.?

2. The petitioner and the respondents were doing business in Sharjah. It is alleged that, while in Sharjah, the respondents had induced the petitioner to part with UAE Dirhams equivalent to 35 lakhs of Indian money to the respondents on 13.11.2013 at the residence of the respondents at Sharjah, by promising the reconstitution of a partnership deed and the induction of the petitioner also as partner in the business of that firm. After taking away the money, nothing was heard about it from the respondents. When the petitioner approached the respondents, the 1st respondent handed over a cheque for an amount of 1,60,000 UAE Dirhams in favour of the petitioner drawn on Sharjah Main Branch of the ADC Bank. The said cheque, on presentation, returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. According to the petitioner, even through the original transaction, he was deliberately cheated and defrauded and hence, the complaint.

3. Petitioner filed the private complainant as CMP No.4829/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam alleging offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C., against respondents 1 and 2 as accused. It is true that the relief sought for in the complaint before the court below was for forwarding the complaint for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. At the same time, specific allegations have been raised by the petitioner in the complaint and it is discernible from the complaint that there are specific allegations constituting the offences alleged.

4. Even though the complainant has prayed before the court below for getting the complaint forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., instead of granting such a relief, the court below has chosen to proceed with the matter under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and directed the petitioner to be present before the court below with witnesses for examination. The same is under challenge herein, at the instance of the complainant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. T.N. Manoj. According to him, the matter is squarely hit by Section 188 Cr.P.C., and the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not legally sustainable. Further according to him, when the offence was allegedly committed abroad, it will not be possible for the petitioner to produce sufficient evidence before the learned Magistrate, and a proper investigating machinery alone will be able to collect sufficient evidence in a case of this nature.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram v. Surinder Kumar [(2004) 11 SCC 622], wherein it was held:

“He could direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Even if the scope of investigation is limited as noticed in the said decision, the Magistrate has powers under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation and in the meanwhile he may postpone issue of process against the accused by adopting any one of the courses mentioned in Section 202(1).”

7. In the 3 Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another [(2008) 17 SCC 157], it was held that the expression “cognisance” is not defined in the Code but, it is a word of indefinite import. The Apex Court has also relied on the decision in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [AIR 1951 SC 207], wherein it was held:

“7. ... What is 'taking cognisance' has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, and I have no d