Advocates:
A.V.Velayudhan Nair, B.Kanta Rao, M.R.K.CHOUDHARY, P.Basi Reddy, P.PARMESHVARAN, P.RAM REDDY

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The case concerns the scope of a Magistrate's authority to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when a complaint discloses an offence that is exclusively triable by a Court of Session (!) .

2. The core issue is whether a Magistrate receiving such a complaint is barred from sending it for police investigation under Section 156(3) due to the restriction imposed by the first Proviso to Section 202(1) of the CrPC, which prohibits investigation if the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session (!) .

3. The new Code (1973) introduced changes that distinguish between the stages of initiating a case—specifically, the difference between taking cognizance and merely forwarding a complaint for investigation (!) (!) .

4. The power under Section 156(3) is exercisable at a pre-cognizance stage, before the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, whereas Section 202 applies after the Magistrate has taken cognizance and is dealing with the case under Chapter XV (!) (!) .

5. The exercise of power under Section 156(3) does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence; therefore, it remains permissible even if the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, provided the Magistrate has not yet taken cognizance (!) (!) .

6. The decision to send a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) does not automatically invoke the restrictions of Section 202(1) and its first Proviso, unless the Magistrate has already applied his mind to the case and taken cognizance (!) (!) .

7. The stage at which Section 202 becomes operative is only after the Magistrate has examined the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 and has formed an opinion on the prima facie nature of the offence, which was not done in this case (!) (!) .

8. The Court clarified that in the case at hand, the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding, but only ordered an investigation under Section 156(3). Therefore, the restriction in the first Proviso to Section 202(1) was not applicable (!) .

9. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a Magistrate can direct police investigation under Section 156(3) without being barred by the provisions of Section 202(1) when the Magistrate has not yet taken cognizance of the offence (!) .

10. Overall, the legal principles emphasize the distinction between initiating a case and ordering an investigation, clarifying that the restriction on investigation for offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session applies only after the Magistrate has taken cognizance, which was not the case here (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.