Point of law: distinction between the investigation by the police officer under Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the pre-cognizance stage and the latter is at post cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is seisin of the case. The investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or false hood of the complaint for helping the Magistrate to decide, whether or not there is sufficient ground, for him to proceed further against the accused by issuing process, whereas, the inquiry report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. of the investigation made by the police of its own or under the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri. Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant Sri. Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) has been filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2020, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Kanpur Dehat, in Misc. Case No. 743 of 2020 (Lalaram vs. Ram Kishan and Others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station Rasoolabad, District kanpur Dehat. Further prayer is for a direction to the court below to issue direction to the concerned police station for registration of first information report in pursuance of the Misc. Case No. 743 of 2020 (Lalaram vs. Ram Kishan and Others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat, under suitable section and submit report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.

3. Considering nature of the order under challenge, as well as the order proposed to be passed and as purely legal question is involved and keeping this revision pending would serve no fruitful purpose as well as keeping in view that at this stage, the proposed accused-private respondents have no right to be heard, the notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case as per the revision/petition are that the opposite party nos.2 to 14 demolished foundation in front of the door of the revisionist/applicant on 02.07.2020 at about 10.00 A.M. for constructing path, to which the revisionist objected in view of the pendency of a Civil Suit No. 279 of 2020 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat. On 07.07.2020 at about 8.00 A.M. the opposite party nos. 2 to 14 entered the house of the revisionist and mercilessly beaten him with lathi-danda and foot. They also snatched Rs. 1600/- from purse in the pocket of the revisionist and thereafter ran away by extending threat to face dire consequences. The revisionist immediately informed the concerned police station but his case was not registered and he was told to go for medical examination firstly. On the next day i.e. on 08.07.2020 the revisionist went to the District Hospital Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat for his medical examination and was referred to the Dentist for further examination. The revisionist informed the whole incident to the Superintendent of Police Kanpur Dehat by way of an application through registered post on 16.07.2020, but no action was taken thereon and consequently he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Kanpur Dehat on 14.08.2020, alongwith the injury report dated 08.07.2020, X-ray report dated 16.07.2020 and other documents, according to which the revisionist had sustained grievous injuries caused by hard and blunt object. The learned Magistrate by order dated 26.03.2020 treated the application as a complaint case.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order under challenge does not secure the ends of justice, in as much as the learned Magistrate has registered the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and has directed the applicant/complainant to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. His submission is that the learned Magistrate must have directed the police to register the FIR and make investigation and submit report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as the averments in the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, and if the application disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate must have directed for investigation by police before taking cognizance and must not have taken upon himself to inquire into the matter after taking cognizance by registering the application as a complaint case.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in view of the nature of the averments and the of