JUDGMENT S.N. Phukan, J.—This is a petition filed by two persons, namely, Surinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar under sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 5-9-1994 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in a complaint petition filed under sections 379, 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order, which has been passed on the complaint petition itself vide Annexure P-7 runs as follows : "Heard. Let this complaint be forwarded to S.H.O., P.S. Rampur for investigation under section 156 (3), Cr.P.C." Heard Mr. B.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are disputes both Civil and Criminal between the parties and as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, no prima facie case has been made out in the complaint petition filed by the respondent. That apart, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order is bad in law inasmuch as under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court should send the complaint petition for investigation only after examining the complainant and other witnesses present. In this, connection, the learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Clause (b) of section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It runs as follows : "(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200." 3. It may be stated that sub-section (1) of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower the Magistrate to direct the police to investigate into the matter. 4. Sub-section (3) of section 156 empowers the Magistrate, who can take cognizance of any case under section 190, Cr. P C. to order investigation through police. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this case as cognizance was taken, the learned trial Court ought to have examined the complainant and/or his witnesses before sending the case for investigation by the police. P C. to order investigation through police. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this case as cognizance was taken, the learned trial Court ought to have examined the complainant and/or his witnesses before sending the case for investigation by the police. In this connection, the learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the decision of Karnataka High Court in Gautam and others v. State of Karnataka, 1(1992)CCR 889, wherein it was held that if a Magistrate takes cognizance, it is not permissible for him to switch back to the procedure available to him next before the pre-cognizance stage. In other words, after taking cognizance he cannot send the case for investigation by the police. From the facts of the case, it appears that in that case charge-sheet was filed. That apart in the case in hand, there is nothing to show that the Magistrate took cognizance as required under sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 6 Mr. N.K Sood, learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent has placed reliance on the decision of apex Court in Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2401. The apex Court considered the provisions of sections 156 (3), 190 (1) (a), 200, 202 and 204 and inter alia held that a Magistrate can order investigation under section 156 (3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognizance under sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter14, lie is not entitled in law to order any investigation under section 156 (3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to section 202 he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by section 202 of the Code. It was also held that the Magistrate can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses 7. In the case in hand, the complainant or his witnesses were not examined. In the case in hand, the complainant or his witnesses were not examined. Therefore, I hold that the impugned order was passed before taking cognizance and in view of the law laid down by the apex Court, it cannot be said that the impugned order is either illegal or the learned Magistrate has committed any irregularity in not recording the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses. 8. Admittedly, there are disputes between the parties, which prima facie appears to be of civil nature. This Court is confident that the Investigating Officer shall go into the entire facts including the orders passed by the Civil Court and also the earlier order passed by the Criminal Court before submitting the report to the Court, as required under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Stay order stands vacated. Revision disposed of