Ratios:
a. When a complaint is forwarded by Magistrate to police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C., the police has to register FIR and proceed with investigation.
b. Conducting enquiry by police on a complaint forwarded by Magistrate without registration of FIR is bad in law.

A private complaint has been preferred by the second respondent as against the petitioners herein, before the Judicial Magistrate, No.VI, Coimbatore, for an offence punishable under section 120(b), 417 and 420 IPC, whereupon, after taking the complaint on file, the learned Magistrate issued a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the first respondent for investigation and, pursuant thereto, enquiry was taken up in CFR No.6131 of 2009 and, seeking to quash the same, the present petition has been preferred.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by submitting that the offences alleged are not made out as the dispute involved is purely civil nature, would point out that, pending enquiry in CFR No.6131 of 2009, the second respondent preferred a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.17440 of 2009 seeking for a direction to register First Information Report and investigate into the complaint forwarded by the learned Magistrate by order dated 10.06.2009; under such circumstances, an FIR need not be registered since the first respondent has already taken up the enquiry.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the enquiry conducted by R-1 in CFR No.6131 of 2009 was completed and, on 29.06.2009, final report has been filed to the effect that the dispute is of civil nature and such conclusion having been reached prior to the order of this Court dated 24.08.2009 in Crl.O.P.No17440 of 2009, such order may be set aside with liberty to the 2nd respondent to file protest petition before the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the second respondent/ complainant submits that it is the bounden duty of the first respondent police to register an FIR soon after the direction issued under section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, but, curiously, with self-motivated zeal, he proceeded to conduct an enquiry in CFR No.6131 of 2009 without registration of an FIR; that being so, the final report filed would have no validity or sanctity in the eye of law. Moreover, having regard to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.17440 of 2009 dated 24.08.2009, the first respondent must register an FIR, conduct investigation afresh and come to a conclusion one way or the other. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of Apex Court reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 627 in MOHD.YOUSUF VS. AFAQ JAHAN (SMT) AND ANOTHER wherein it has been ruled as follows:

“The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the code only thereafter”.

Next, he relied on the decision of this High Court, reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 332 in K.SUNDAARAVELU @ K.BALASUNDARAM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH CHENNAI AND ANOTHER by referring to the following observation,

“9. Therefore, in view of the well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the complaint, disclosing the cognizable offence, may well justifi