1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by First ASJ, Gwalior affirming the order passed by JMFC, Gwalior in unregistered case No. 2010 dated 20.1.2011 whereby learned trial Court has directed police to investigate under section 156 (3) CrPC concerning the complaint filed by respondent No.1 in that Court.

2. Facts in nut-shell giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.1/complainant has filed one complaint under sections 420, 467, 468, 473, 504, 506, 193 and 189 IPC against petitioner in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior in which, learned trial Court directed police to investigate under section 156 (3) CrPC. Against that order, revision was preferred on the ground that as the complaint filed against petitioner disclose the offences triable by Sessions Court, hence, the Magistrate has no power to order police to investigate under section 156 (3) CrPC. Revision was preferred against that order. Revisional Court has dismissed the revision giving rise to this petition.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per allegations of complaint, the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, Magistrate should not have directed police to investigate under section 156 (3) CrPC. The Magistrate should have considered the case as per the provisions of section 202 (2) CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the citation Nanjiram v. State of M.P. 2008 (4) Crimes 292 (MP). In that case a bench of this Court has held that in case of complaint in which allegations were for offence triable by Sessions Court, a Magistrate has no power to direct investigation under section 156 (3) CrPC.

Placing reliance on this citation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of learned trial Court as well as that of revisional Court are improper, illegal and not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned PP urged that there is no perversity in the impugned order. The order passed by learned trial Judge is correct and proper as learned trial Court without taking cognizance has directed police to investigate under section 156 (3) CrPC hence, obstruction of section 202 is not applicable in the case as Chapter XII of CrPC deals with pre-cognizance stage and Chapter XIV of CrPC deals with post-cognizance stage. Hence, this revision being sans merit is to be dismissed.

6. Heard rival contention of both the counsels and perused the documents on record.

7. While exercising revisional powers, correctness, legality and propriety of order passed is to be examined.

8. In order to examine the scope of sections 156 (3) and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, these sections need to be quoted, the same reads as under :-

"156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case:-

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned."

Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :-

"202. Postponement of issue of process - (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized 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 to a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction) postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by