Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint (Criminal M. P. 1563 of 1985) before the judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Kodungallur against the respondent for an offence punishable under S.494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The petitioner thereafter moved the Magistrate to direct police investigation as part of the enquiry under S.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That prayer was rejected on the ground that such a course is prohibited by S.198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order is under challenge in this petition filed under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. S.198 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "198, Prosecution for offences against marriage: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence" Chapter XX of the I. P. C. deals with offences relating to marriage and S.494 comes in that chapter. The effect of S.198 of the Crl. P. C. is that the court can take cognizance of the offence of bigamy only on the complaint of a person aggrieved by the offence. That means that on a police report or on the complaint of a person who is not aggrieved by the offence the court is prohibited from taking cognizance. The question is whether S.198 operates as a bar against ordering police investigation after the Magistrate has taken cognizance on the complaint of an aggrieved person. The Magistrate held that there is such a bar. 3. Evidently the view expressed by the Magistrate is erroneous. S.198 only prohibits taking cognizance except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. It does not fetter the discretion of the Magistrate in ordering investigation in an inquiry under S.202 after taking cognizance. In ordering investigation by the police the Magistrate can act both under S.156(3) and under S.202. Ordering investigation under S.156(3) is only before taking cognizance under S.200. In such a case when the report of investigation is received the Magistrate can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightaway issue process or even apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under S.190 ignoring the report of the police. Ordering investigation under S.156(3) is only before taking cognizance under S.200. In such a case when the report of investigation is received the Magistrate can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightaway issue process or even apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under S.190 ignoring the report of the police. In this case we are not concerned with an investigation under S.156(3) because S.198 is a bar to such an investigation. Since the magistrate has to take cognizance on the complaint of an aggrieved person there is no question of resorting to the recognizance stage procedure of ordering investigation under S.156 (3). After taking cognizance under S.200 and before issuing process under S.204, the magistrate may, if he thinks fit either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This is provided under S.202. Such an enquiry need be conducted only if the magistrate considers necessary. Otherwise he can straightaway issue process after 'complying with the provisions of S.200. This discretion of conducting an enquiry under S.202 before issuing process under S.204 is to satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. This is a post cognizance stage enquiry which need be conducted only if the magistrate thinks fit to do. So also in such an enquiry whether an investigation by a police officer or such other officer has to be directed or not is a matter solely within the discretion of the magistrate to decide eventhough the discretion has to be exercised judicially. The purpose of the investigation which is part of the enquiry under S.202 is only to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding 4. The provision for enquiry under S.202 could be resorted to by the magistrates in all cases where they take cognizance of an offence on complaint under S.190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such complaints include those filed under S.198 of the Criminal Procedure Code also. Though S.198 specifies the persons competent to file complaints and prohibits the courts from taking cognizance except on their complaint, the prohibition or restriction is only regarding taking cognizance. Such complaints include those filed under S.198 of the Criminal Procedure Code also. Though S.198 specifies the persons competent to file complaints and prohibits the courts from taking cognizance except on their complaint, the prohibition or restriction is only regarding taking cognizance. As soon as cognizance is taken it is for the magistrate to decide whether he has to conduct an enquiry under S.202 before issuing process or whether he can issue process straightaway after complying S.200. Of course examination of complainant and witnesses is not necessary in written complaints filed by public servants in their official capacity. The apprehension of the magistrate that in view of S.198 he was not competent to order police investigation under S.202 is not correct. In fact he was competent to order investigation as part of the enquiry under S.202. 5. It is true that as I have earlier stated eventhough the magistrate is competent to order investigation, the discretion is with him to have it or not, That aspect was not considered by him in view of his erroneous approach that there is a prohibition. The petitioner has assigned several reasons why an investigation is necessary. The magistrate has not applied his mind to those reasons. I am not expressing any opinion on that aspect fearing that it may influence the magistrate in his decision. The wrong view taken by the magistrate and his consequent refusal to exercise the discretion vested in him has resulted in abuse of the process of court and consequent miscarriage of justice. The petition is allowed and the order of the magistrate is quashed. The magistrate will proceed to consider the request for police investigation on the merits in view of what is stated above and pass orders.