JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 21.09.2021, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Chadoora, in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 against them. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate has, while exercising his power under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C, directed registration of FIR and investigation of the case. Challenge has also been thrown to FIR No.162/2021 for offences under Section 376, 354, 109, 120-B IPC registered by Police Station, Chadoora, pursuant to the impugned direction of the learned Magistrate.

2. It appears that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint before the trial court alleging commission of offences under Section 376, 354, 109, 120-B IPC against petitioners. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner No.2, who happens to be the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, has committed acts of domestic violence upon her. It was further alleged that on 17.06.2021, when the husband of respondent No.2/complainant was not present in the house, at around 10.30 pm, petitioner No.1 offered a glass of milk to respondent No.2/complainant and when she took the milk, she became unconscious. It was further alleged that at around 2/3 a.m, when respondent No.2 regained her senses, she found herself naked on a bed along with petitioner No.1, who thereafter ran away from there. Respondent No.2/complainant went on to allege that she was in a state of inebriation and again became unconscious and woke up in the morning. It is further alleged that the respondent No.2/complainant, after a period of three days, upon insistence of her husband, narrated the episode to her husband and later to the uncle of her husband. The matter was brought to the notice of the family elders but nothing fruitful came out. Respondent No.2/complainant is also alleged to have approached SSP, Budgam, who marked her complaint to Dy. SP, Cherar-i-Sharief, wherefrom she was referred to SHO, P/S Chadoora, but no heed was paid to her woes and no FIR was lodged. It was further alleged that the petitioners had admitted their guilt before the Panchayat members and that petitioner No.1 had even tendered an apology.

3. The record reveals that on 14.08.2021, the learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant and one witness on oath, whereafter the learned Magistrate directed SHO, P/S Chadoora, to investigate the matter in the light of the averments made in the complaint, in terms of Section 202 of the Cr. P.C for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter on 21.09.2021, the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the report from the SHO, P/S Chadoora, passed another order observing that after going through the averments made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded and also the supporting documents and the phone recording, she has come to a conclusion that a proper FIR needs to be registered against the accused persons. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the police registered the impugned FIR.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order and the FIR registered pursuant thereto on the grounds that the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law, inasmuch as once the learned Magistrate had chosen to take cognizance of the offences and directed investigation in terms of Section 202 of the Cr. P.C, it was not open to her to pass a direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C to the police to register an FIR. It is further contended that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 are aimed at divesting petitioner No.2 and her husband of the immovable property owned and possessed by them. It is contended that in this regard respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against petitioner No.2 and her husband seeking reliefs with respect to providin