A Magistrate can order investigation under S.156(3) of the Code before taking cognizance of the offence, and it is not necessary to examine the complainant on oath for this purpose.

1. Leave granted.

2. A complaint was forwarded by a Magistrate to the police for registering an FIR and for conducting investigation. One of the persons arrayed in the complaint as accused questioned the legality of the above order first in revision before the Sessions Court and then by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. Both did not succeed. This appeal is by the same person contending that the order of the Magistrate should have been upset in the interest of justice.

3. The complaint was filed by the second respondent (Mahesh Patidar) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch (MP) on 12.8.1999 alleging that the appellant and his wife, Geeta Devi have committed offence under S.3 of the Prized Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Prohibition) Act and under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 18.8.1999 which is extracted below:

"The complaint submitted by the complainant has been perused. This complaint has been submitted by the complainant for initiating action against the accused under S.3 of the Prizes, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Prohibition) Act and S.420 of the IPC. Both the offences are serious, therefore, the case is required to be investigated by the Police Station, Neemuch Cantt. under S.156(3) Cr.P.C., therefore, the complaint submitted by the complainant be sent to the in charge, Police Station, Neemuch Cantt. with the direction to register F.I.R. and initiate investigation. The copy of the F.I.R. be sent to this Court immediately."

4. Appellant challenged the said order in a revision before the Sessions Court and when the revision was dismissed he moved the High Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short'the Code'). Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh took the view that "in a private complaint case under S.156(3) of the Code the Magistrate is empowered to order investigation; the allegation made in the complaint needs to be investigated in public interest".

5. Shri. R.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel contended first that a Magistrate on receipt of a complaint should have examined the complainant on oath before proceeding to any other step. Learned senior Counsel adopted the alternative contention that the Magistrate has no power to direct the police to register an F.I.R. In support of the said contention learned Counsel cited two decisions. One is Ram Narain v. Lokuram (1986 (37) Rajasthan Law Weekly 143) and the other was rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (1996 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 137).

6. The former decision of the Rajasthan High Court need not vex our mind as the consideration focused therein was on the scope of S.202(1) of the Code and the learned Single Judge observed therein that a Magistrate cannot make any order regarding police investigation without examining the complainant on oath. If the facts in that case remained one under S.202(1) of the Code then the observation cannot be faulted with. That apart, as the point involved in this case is different we do not think it necessary to examine the said decision. But the other decision rendered by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana) has gone a step further as he held that "the Magistrate has no power within the contemplation of S.156(3) of the Code to ask for registration of the case, but could only refer the complaint to the police for investigation at the pre-cognizance stage to make the enquiry in the matter enabling the Magistrate to apply his mind with regard to the correctness of the complaint." In that decision learned Single Judge, at the end of the judgment, made a direction as follows:

"Before parting with the judgment, it is observed that often it is found that the Judicial Magistrates working under the control of this Court many a time upon the complaints preferred before them, allegedly showing that a cognizable offence has been c