Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under S.561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for directing (1) the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, to examine the petitioner in regard to the complaint he has filed before the Magistrate and (2) the second respondent, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam to submit to the Sub-divisonal Magistrate a report regarding the complaint which the Magistrate sent to the Sub Inspector for investigation. 2. On 71/2 cents of land belonging to and in the possession of the petitioner six persons are alleged to have trespassed on 6-1-1960 and committed mischief. The same day the petitioner filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent. As he did not take any action on it a separate complaint was filed by the petitioner on 19-1-1970 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. The Magistrate sent it to the 2nd respondent for investigation and report. The latter has not so far filed a report. That is why the petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions in S.561 A. 3. According to the petitioner when the complaint was filed before the Magistrate he should immediately have examined the petitioner and the omission to do it was failure to comply with the mandatory provision regarding it in S.200 occurring in Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that on receipt of the complaint S.200 makes the examination of the complainant peremptory but that is only on the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the complaint. The question is whether the Magistrate in the instant case can be said to have taken cognizance of any offence when he directed investigation by the second respondent of the truth or falsehood of the complaint. Although directing a police officer to investigate about the truth or falsehood of a complaint is an authorised step in procedure the Magistrate who resorts to it cannot by that mere act be said to have applied his mind and decided to take further proceedings under the subsequent sections in Chapter XVI of the Crl. PC, when alone he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint. Das Gupta, J. said in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR. 1950 Cal. 437: "What is taking cognizance has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code and I have no desire to attempt to define it. Das Gupta, J. said in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR. 1950 Cal. 437: "What is taking cognizance has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code and I have no desire to attempt to define it. It seems to me clear, however, that before it can be said that any magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under; S.190 (1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter proceeding under S.200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under S.202. When the Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e. g., ordering investigation under S.156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence." These observations were cited with approval and followed by the Supreme Court in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 986, Narayandas Bhagwandas v. State of West Bengal AIR 1959 SC 1118 and R. R. Chari v. State of U. P., AIR 1951 SC 207. 4. As the Magistrate in the present case cannot be considered as having taken cognizance of the offences by merely ordering the second respondent to investigate about them the first prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. But his second prayer has to be granted because under S.173 of the Code the second respondent is bound to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay, although several months have passed after the occurrence he has not so far completed the investigation and so much of delay in a simple case of trespass and mischief in unreasonable. Hence this petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to complete the investigation and file the report before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, without any further delay.