The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 202 of the Code, which empowers the Magistrate to direct an investigation to be made by a police officer before issuing process against the accused.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the Code) challenges the order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala directing the S.H.O. of Police Station, Samrala to submit his report after investigation on or before 6.1.2004. Brief facts:

2. Petitioner has filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 leveling allegations of demand of dowry and mis-appropriation of Istri Dhan. It was further alleged that the allegations constitute commission of offences under Sections 406/498 A read with Section 34 IPC. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1, Kulwinder Singh was married to her by performing Anand Karaj ceremony at Samrala according to Sikh rites on 28.9.1992. Both of them started living as husband and wife at matrimonial home at Gali No. 7, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana. The articles forming part of Istri Dhan were entrusted to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is further alleged that she was turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes in December, 1993 when she was carrying two months old pregnancy. On 9.7.1994 a male child was born to the petitioner-complainant. However, she was taken back to the matrimonial home in 1994. Further allegations of demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- were made for reconstruction of the house by the respondents. The petitioner-complainant has alleged that she has been turned out of the matrimonial home time and again. The matter was reported to the police but the police did not entertain the complaint and advised the petitioner-complainant to approach the Court. On 7.8.2001, she filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who registered the complaint and adjourned the same for 6.9.2001 for recording of preliminary evidence of the petitioner-complainant. Statements of four persons including the petitioner-complainant have been recorded and the preliminary evidence was closed. On 29.8.2003, the Magistrate passed the following order:

"Complainant closed evidence. Before proceeding further I am of the considered view that report of SHO be called. SHO PS Samrala is directed to submit his report after investigation on or before 6.1.2004."

3. Shri G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has argued that once the Magistrate has recorded statements of witnesses produced by the petitioner-complainant under Section 200 of the Code then there was no jurisdiction with her to make a reference to the police by invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code. According to the learned counsel, the Magistrate has already taken cognizance by recording preliminary evidence and it was her duty to issue process to the accused. According to the learned counsel, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside with a direction to her to issue the process. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 363.

4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and am of the view that the order passed by the Magistrate does not suffer from any jurisdictional, procedural or any other legal error. Under Section 202 of the Code, the issuance of process can be postponed by the Magistrate and there is ample power given to him to direct investigation to be made by the police officer. Section 202 of the Code reads as under:

"202. Postponement of issue of process.- (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, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit,