A Magistrate cannot revert to pre-cognizance procedures after taking cognizance of an offence, as per established judicial principles.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since all the three criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed in respect of the same F.I.R. vide Lalpur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 3463 of 2018, hence all the three criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the common prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 3463 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 509 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in Cr.M.P. No. 1402 of 2019, an additional prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 19.05.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate invoked the power under 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and directed for registration of the F.I.R. Cr.M.P. No. 2649 of 2021 has been filed by Bimal Dutt @ Bimal Dutta with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.05.2018, besides quashing the order dated 14.06.2021 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against him.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2-complainant-informant of all the three cases filed Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2018. He carried out some amendment in the original Cr.M.P. and the case was fixed to 18.05.2018 vide order dated 17.05.2018 for recording of statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant, but instead of the complainant getting his statement recorded on solemn affirmation, as directed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, he filed a petition to refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of an F.I.R. and for investigation of the case. Vide order dated 19.05.2018, the learned Magistrate referred the said Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2018 for institution of the F.I.R. and basing upon the said order, Lalpur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2018 has been registered and police took up investigation of the case. Though the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2649 of 2021 namely Bimal Dutt @ Bimal Dutta was not the named accused person of the complaint or the F.I.R. which has been registered on the basis of the said complaint but during the course of the said investigation, the I.O. of the case has found complicity of the petitioner in commission of the offence and prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and accordingly vide order dated 14.06.2021 in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 2574 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2123 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024, para-8 of which reads as under:-

“8. In view of the above, it is clear that when the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.” (Emphasis supplied)

Submits that since vide order dated 17.05.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after applying his mind preferred to f