Important points
No material before this Court to find that the petitioner had made any application before the learned Magistrate praying that investigation by the police may be directed under Section 202(1) of the Code and any order was passed by the learned Magistrate on such application. An investigation directed under Section 202 of the Code has limited purpose of deciding "whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding". It is entirely within the discretion of the Magistrate to direct an investigation under Section 202(1) of the Code.

When a petition/complaint in writing made before the Magistrate contains allegations as to commission of a cognizable offence by a person and the only relief sought or prayer made in it is for forwarding it to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for investigation, can it not be treated as a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code? This question arises for consideration in this case.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The husband of the petitioner died on 06.07.1990 in a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, certain disputes arose with regard to her share in the property owned by her husband. The petitioner instituted the suits O.S.No.717/1995 and O.S.No.718/1995, through her power of attorney, in the Sub Court, Ernakulam for resolving the disputes. She filed O.P.(MV) No.2058/1990 and her mother-in-law filed O.P.(MV) No.2132/1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming compensation for the death of her husband in the accident. Against the award passed by the Tribunal in these cases, the petitioner and her mother-in-law filed appeals as M.F.A.Nos.84 of 2001 and 136 of 2001 before this Court. The first respondent was the lawyer engaged by the petitioner.

3. On 04.10.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint as C.M.P.No.3148/2011 in the Magistrate's Court concerned against the first respondent, her lawyer, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that when she visited the office of the first respondent on 30.03.2011, she came to know that all the cases mentioned above were settled on the basis of a compromise petition dated 22.07.2002 filed before this Court. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner obtained a copy of the compromise petition from the first respondent on 28.09.2011. He was then shocked to find that the signature in the compromise petition was not that of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the first respondent colluded with her mother-in-law and forged the signature of the petitioner and cheated her. The petitioner has further alleged in the complaint that the first respondent misappropriated the amount received by way of demand draft pursuant to the compromise.

4. The complaint was filed by the petitioner through her power of attorney holder. Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and posted the case for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. But, the petitioner did not examine any other witness.

5. As per the order dated 24.09.2001 (Annexure A1), the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code finding that the allegations in the complaint are baseless. Learned Magistrate found that it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint and the documents filed along with the complaint would prima facie give indication of commission of the offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed revision petition as Crl.R.P.No.152/2012 before the Court of Session, Ernakulam. The petitioner contended before the revisional court that the learned Magistrate should have forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation instead of proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code. On the other hand, the first respondent contended before the revisional court that the only prayer made in the complaint was that it may be forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and therefore, it cannot be treated as a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code.

7. As per the order dated 10.10.2014, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge found that the complain