JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : In this revision, the petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 17.04.2006 passed in C.T. Case No.693 of 2006 / I.C.C. Case No.48 of 2006 whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Angul has directed to O.I.C., Angul P.S. for investigation of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to submit final form within a stipulated date.

2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.2, as complainant, instituted a complaint case against the present petitioners before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul, which was regis¬tered as I.C.C. Case No.48 of 2006. The complainant runs a work¬shop, i.e., a manufacturing unit of gold ornaments in the name and style “Sudarshan Alankar”. The accused persons, petitioners herein, are well known to him since long. They have a similar workshop, namely, “Rajeswari Alankar” at village Kumanda of Angul. Petitioner No.1 has also another business unit, namely, “Durga Alankar” near College Square, Angul. It is alleged that on 28.12.2005, the accused-petitioner No.1 came to the shop of the complainant and requested him to give an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on credit for developmental work of his workshop “Durga Alankar”. On that day, i.e., 28.12.2005, the accused-petitioner No.1 took on credit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the shape of cash by executing an agreement in presence of the witnesses to the effect that in the event of failure to repay the loan amount on or before 28.01.2006, he will execute a registered sale deed of his residential plot and house situated at village Kumanda in favour of the complainant. As accused-petitioner No.1 did not repay the loan by the due date, the complainant on 29.01.2006 met the latter and approached him to repay the loan but he avoided paying the same. On 11.04.2006 at about 4.00 P.M. both the peti¬tioners while passing by a motorcycle met the complainant on the road near Hata Chhaka,Angul, Petitioner No.1, who was driving the motorcycle, parked the same on the left side of the road. There¬after, both the accused-petitioners came to the complainant and abused him in filthy language and brutally assaulted him with kick and fist blows. Petitioner No.1 pressed the neck of the complainant and petitioner No.2 gave two blows on his belly. The complainant shouted for help, hearing which the witnesses rushed to the spot and saved the life of the complainant. It is also alleged that both petitioners 1 and 2 had made a criminal con¬spiracy to grab the money from the complainant. They also commit¬ted breach of trust. The complaint petition was presented on 12.04.2006 and by order dated 17.04.2006 the learned S.D.J.M. sent the complaint to O.I.C., Angul P.S. for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to submit final form.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned S.D.J.M. has committed grave illegality in sending the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Once the learned Magistrate proceeded for conducting enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for recording initial state¬ment, he should not have taken recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. She further submits that any order for enquiry or investigation by the police after proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and deciding to record initial statement could only be done under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The implications and ramifications of an investigation under the two provisions are vastly different. In support of her conten¬tion, learned counsel relies on H.S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883; Babu alias Badal Das, etc. v. State of Orissa, (1997)12 OCR 314; and Sudhansu Parida v. State of Orissa, (2004) 29 OCR 351.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the learned S.D.J.M. has not committed any illegality by passing the impugned order. The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is different from the power to direct investigation conferre