JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya whereby after taking evidence of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation to the S.H.O. Sangariya under section 202 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to this petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against 11 persons in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 474,120(b), 420 and 406 IPC. In para No. 7 of that complaint, the complainant petitioner averred material facts and it was specifically averred that the accused have committed the above offences. The complainant made a prayer that the above complaint be forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. 3. It appears that the learned Magistrate inspite of forwarding the complaint to the concerned police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. examined the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and then forwarded the same to the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence this petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has very vehemently con-tended that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in entertaining the complaint himself instead of forwarding the same to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. His main contention is that the application filed by him was not a complaint and hence, the learned Magistrate was not competent to have taken proceedings under section 200 or 202 Cr.P.C. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on Chhedi v. State of U.F'., 1991 Cr.L.J. 3017 . 6. In that case, the facts were that an occurrence took place on 14.9.1988 at about 11 PM in which the applicant revisionists from one side and Cheddi and others on the other were said to have been involved and an FIR of the occurrence was also lodged by Haneef at P.S. Rohania on 15.9.1988 at 7.20 PM under section 323/504 against Umar and Others. Regarding the same occurrence another FIR was lodged by Smt. Badrun Bibi (respondent No. 2) against the applicants under sections 323/504 IPC. On 16.9.1988, Smt. Badrun Bibi moved an application before the Addl. Regarding the same occurrence another FIR was lodged by Smt. Badrun Bibi (respondent No. 2) against the applicants under sections 323/504 IPC. On 16.9.1988, Smt. Badrun Bibi moved an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi under section 156(3 Cr.P.C. praying that police of P.S. Rohania be directed to lodge an FIR under section 394/395 IPC against Cheddi and other and thereafter to take proceedings against them in accordance with law. On that application, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate made enquiry from P.S. Rohania if any case was or was not registered regarding the incident which was mentioned by Badrun Bibi in her application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Station Officer, P.S. Rohania reported that the allegations of Badrun Bibi regarding the occurrence of dacoity were not substantiated. Thereafter the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the witnesses produced by Badrun Bibi and summoned the applicants under section 204 Cr.P.C. 7. From the perusal of the complaint/application filed by the petitioner, it is more than clear that the complainant-petitioner has made definite allegations against some persons named therein regarding commission of various offences. Even in the narration of the facts, the petitioner has clearly stated that the accused by various acts committed the above offences. Thereafter, the complainant prayed that their application may be forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., Sangariya. 8. The term 'complaint' has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and it lays down that 'complaint' means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person , whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. From the perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is clear that all the ingredients of the term 'complaint' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act are available in the aforesaid application and the complainant has made allegations in writing and has clearly stated that the accused committed the above offences. Thus, merely by making a prayer that application be forwarded to the concerned Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that it was only an application and not a complaint and hence the learned Addl. Thus, merely by making a prayer that application be forwarded to the concerned Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that it was only an application and not a complaint and hence the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent in forwarding this complaint to the concerned Police Station for making enquiry or to make an enquiry himself. 9. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******