( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the City Magistrate, bangalore passed on 6-11-1969 in CC. No. 111/69 on the file of this court, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is as follows':"on a careful consideration of these facts, I do not find sufficient grounds to proceed with the case and hence 1 refuse to take cognizance of the alleged offence. "the complaint was for an offence of house trespass punishable under s. 488 IPC. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by his order referred to above. ( 2 ) TWO contentions were advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention was that the Magistrate ought to have examined the complainant on oath after the complaint was filed and that the Magistrate has erred in not examining the complainant on oath, it was submitted that the provision of Sec. 200 Cr. P. C. is mandatory and omissison to examine the complainant on oath is an illegality and the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside on that ground. The second contention was that the Magistrate has erred in dismissing a private complaint without giving the complainant an opportunity to prove her case inspite of her Counsel submitting that the petitioner had evidence both oral and documentary, to support her case. After a perusal of the record, I think, there appears to be no force in the first contention. ( 3 ) SECTION 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:"156 (1) Any Officer in charge of a police station may without the order of a 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 XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial. (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 S. 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned. "section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down:"200. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under S. 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned. "section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down:"200. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: provided as follows: section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads: "202 (1 ). Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance, or which has been transferred to him under S. 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the the case himself, or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; provided that, save where the complaint has been made by a court no such direction shall be made unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provisions of S. 200. (2) If any inquiry or investigation under this section is made by a person not being a Magistrate or a police officer, such person shall shall exercise all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station, except that he shall not have power to arrest without warrant. (2a) Any Magistrate inquiring into a case under this section may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. (3) This section applies also to the police in the towns of Calcutta and Bombay. " ( 4 ) IT is thus clear that when the complaint was filed before the Magistrate he could have adopted one of two courses; he could have examined the complainant upon oath and then issued process. On the other hand, he could, under S. 202 Cr. P. C. postpone the issue of process and refer the complaint to the police for further enquiry and then take action on receipt of the report. On the other hand, he could, under S. 202 Cr. P. C. postpone the issue of process and refer the complaint to the police for further enquiry and then take action on receipt of the report. ( 5 ) THE other course open to the Maistrate was to send the complainant to the police asking them to take action under S. 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. In that case, the Magistrate would not examine the complainant but merely forward the complaint to the police for investigation and taking cognizance in the instant case, after the complaint was filed by the petitioner, the magistrate had referred the complaint to the police. The order of the magistrate is as follows:"referred to police (Magadi Road Post) for investigation under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. " ( 6 ) IT will be seen that the Magistrate in this case has forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation and taking cognizance and it is quite clear that the Magistrate acted under Sec 156 (3) Cr P. C. and did not take cognizance of the offence Therefore, the Magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath. He is bound to do so only when he takes cognizance of the case under S 200 Cr. P. C In that case, he would have to proceed under Chapter XVI of the Code. On the other hand, if the magistrate sends the complaint to the Officer in charge of the police station directing him to proceed under Chapter XIV, he need not examine the complainant on oath In the present case, it is quite clear that the Magistrate had referred the complaint to the police (under S 156 (3) Cr P C ) directing him to proceed under Chapter XIV of the Cr. P. C. Thereafter, when 'b' report was submitted by the police, on consideration of the material on record, he passed the order in revision. I think, the procedure followed by the Magistrate was proper and it cannot be said that the same is vitiated by any legal infirmity. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of force. When the complaint petition was sent to the police asking them to take action under S. 156 (3) Cr. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of force. When the complaint petition was sent to the police asking them to take action under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate is not bound to examine the complainant, much less, examine the evidence of the complainant In such a situation he would merely forward the complaint to the police for investigation and taking cognizance, which he has done. No other contention was raised before me on the grounds stated above, the revision petition must fail and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .