Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri H.C.Mishra,learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 4206 of 2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after taking cognizance and recording the statement under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate concerned was required to proceed with the complaint and if prima facie offence was disclosed, then the summon might be issued and if prima facie no offence was disclosed, then the complaint was to be rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. However, after taking cognizance as complainant case and after inquiry, the Magistrate concerned directed the civil police for investigation of the matter by impugned order dated 15.1.2004. After the complaint is filed either the Magistrate concerned would get the matter enquired or might pass order for investigation by the Police, under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. but once the inquiry is conducted by recording statement under Section 202/200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate was not empowered to issue direction under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. for investigation hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contended that applicant No. 1 is owner, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are not working at present and applicant No. 5 is working as Additional Chief Manager in I.P.L. Sugar Mill Ltd. Unit Rohan Kalan Muzaffar Nagar. Proceeding has been initiated with mala fide intention just to harass and blackmail though applicant have not committed any cheating or forgery.

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that the Magistrate has power to issue direction for investigation to collect the evidence in exercise of power under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Considered the submission. The controversy raised in the present case is whether Magistrate has power to issue direction for inquiry/investigation in exercise of power under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. to get the matter inquired/investigated by the police or his power is limited in nature. He can exercise the power of inquiry by himself or to get the matter inquired/investigated by the police or any other person and once he conducted inquiry, recording statement of complainant and witnesses then he will have no power to direct for investigation by Police. For considering the aforesaid controversy the relevant provisions are required to be considered, hence Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are quoted hereinbelow :

Section 200. Examination of complainant.—A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

Section 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, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against