Order The petitioner before this Court was accused-1 in the private complaint filed by the respondent-complainant before the Judicial Magistrate, Fxrst Class at Sindgi. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for having committed offences under sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. After receiving the complaint the learned Magistrate passed the following order: “Complaint presented by complainant and his advocate. Read the complaint has found that cognizable offence has been made out. Hence, send a copy of the complaint to the P.S.I. Alme for investigation and report under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. Awaiting report by 24th November, 1969”. This order of the learned Magistrate is being challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner. Sri K.S. Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and he had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, it is his duty to examine the complainant and the witnesses present on oath. In this case without examining the complainant on oath the learned Magistrate passed the order in question calling for investigation and report by the police under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the two decisions of Calcutta High Court in Samaddar v. Suresh1 and Yakub Sheikh v. The King2 in support of his contentions. Sri Dayanand, learned Counesl appearing on behalf of the State, has argued that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not disclose that he has taken cognizance of the case. It only shows that he read the complaint and thereafter referred the matter to the police for investigation under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. If only the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint he is bound to examine the complainant on oath. He has argued that it is open to the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence to direct the police to investigate under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. If once the Magistrate had examined the complainant on oath then of course the Magistrate was bound to proceed as per section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has argued that it is open to the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence to direct the police to investigate under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. If once the Magistrate had examined the complainant on oath then of course the Magistrate was bound to proceed as per section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sri Dayanand has strongly relied on the decisions reported in Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah3, Narayanadas Bhagwandas and K.V. Subbaiah v. State of Mysore, 5 in support of the said contentions. As the Supreme Court has considered this question and given a ruling in the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court relied on by Sri Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner. In Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah3 their Lordships have pointed out that when a complaint is received and when the Magistrate applies his mind not for purposes of proceeding under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but for purposes of ordering investigation under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cogniszance of any offence. On receipt of the complaint he would without taking cognizance direct to an investigation by the police under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. This is exactly what has happend in the instant case. The learned Magistrate without taking cognizance of the case and without examining the complainant on oath, has referred the matter under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, to the police for investigation and report. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, if the learned Magistrate had examined the complainant of oath by taking cognizance of the case, he should have then followed the procedure laid down under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case mentioned above their Lordships have followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Das v. State of Assam6. In the case mentioned above their Lordships have followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Das v. State of Assam6. In the said case their Lordships have laid down: “When a Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the various sections of Chapter XVI but taking action of some other kind, e.g., Ordering investigation under section 156 (3) or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence.” Their Lordships have also pointed out, in the decision that under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, once a complaint is made, the Magistarate is not bound to take cognizance of the facts stated in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence. The word ‘may’ in section 190, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be consstrued to mean ‘must’. The reason is obvious. A complaint disclosing cognizable offences may well justify a Magistrate in sending the complaint under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, to the police for investigation. There is no reason why, 4. A.I.R. 1969 S.C 1118. the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. There is no force in the contention of Sri. Desai, that simply because the learned Magistrate has stated in his order that a cognizable offence has been made out, he has taken cognizance of the said offence. As has been pointed. out by their Lordships a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence may well justify the Magistrate in sending the complaint under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, to the police for investigation. This Court in K.V. Subbaiah v. The State of My sore1 followed Jamuna Singh v. Badaishah2 and has observed that if the report is called for by the Magistrate without having taken cognizance of the offence complained of or examining the complainant on oath the report submitted by the police will be ore under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. For the reasons stated above it is clear that there is no defect in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate. As he has not taken cognizance of the offence it was open to him to call for a report from the police under section 156 (3) Criminal, Procedure Code. For the reasons stated above it is clear that there is no defect in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate. As he has not taken cognizance of the offence it was open to him to call for a report from the police under section 156 (3) Criminal, Procedure Code. In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Revision dismissed.