JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Both the applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed challenging the order dated 23.2.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 65 of 2001 directing the I.I.C. Lingaraj Police Station to register a case and investigate into the allegations contained in the complaint. Criminal Misc.Case No. 4506 of 2001 has been filed by accused Laxmidhar Das, whereas Criminal Misc. Case No. 3559 of 2001 has been filed by four other accused per¬sons.

2. Case of the complainant is that she is the mother of one Saraswati Behera (since deceased) who was given marriage to accused Laxmidhar Das on 6.7.1999 as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage presentations were given to the tune of rupees three lakhs. The deceased was serving in the office of the Chief En¬gineer, Design and Planning at Secha Sadan and accused Laxmidhar Das was serving as Textile Engineer in the Century Textile Mills at Warli, Mumbai. On 12.8.2000 the deceased went to the place of living of accused Laxmidhar along with her sister who stayed there for two/three days. During her stay she noticed accused Laxmidhar Das had relationship with another woman namely Rakhi. There are several allegations have been made in the complaint with regard to role played by Laxmidhar and said Rakhi in taking away the ornaments belonging to the deceased. Two months after, the deceased came back to Bhubaneswar and narrated her sufferings before the complainant and by that time she was pregnant. Though accused Laxmidhar was requested to come for delivery at least 15 days prior to the expected date, he came on 3.2.2001. When the deceased had labour pain she wanted to be removed to hospital but accused Laxmidhar demanded rupees eight thousand which was also paid. On the very same day at about 12 O’ clock in the mid-night sister of the deceased saw accused Laxmidhar giving a glass of milk and after taking said milk the deceased felt chocked and became unconscious. Finding her health to be serious blood trans¬fusion was advised and she went on sinking and was saying in a feeble voice that she was given poison in the milk and later on she died. On these allegations apart from other allegations made in the complaint, the complaint was filed for commission of offences under Sections 302/498-A and 120-B of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After receipt of the complaint learned S.D.J.M. in the impugned order directed the I.I.C. Lingaraj Police Station to register a case and investigate into the allegations in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

3. Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing in both the cases submitted that in a complaint case where the offence alleged is triable by a Court of Session the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and direct the police to register a case and investigate into the allegations made in the complaint. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rosy and another -v- State of Kerala and others, reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 490. None appeared for the opposite parties at the time of hearing of the applications.

4. The only question of law raised before this Court is that whether in a complaint where offences are triable by Court of Session, learned Magistrate has to make inquiry himself or can exercise power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and direct police officer to register a case and investigate into the allegations. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to refer to Section 202 Cr.P.C. which is quoted below :

“(1)Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, post¬pone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case h