Judgment This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. Petitioners have come against the order passed by the 8th Metropolitan Magistrate rejection the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the Criminal proceeding arising out of Taltala P.S. Case No. 37 dated 31.1.95 under Sections 341/454/506 I.P.C. In short the facts are that Md. Soleman as de facto complainant lodged a written complaint to the P.S. but that was not acted upon by the police. Then the said Soleman approached the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a written complaint against the present petitioners with the prayer to send it to the Officer-in-Charge concerned for starting a police case treating the said complaint as F.I.R. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without sending the said petition of complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala P.S. sent it to the Dy. Commissioner, Central under Section 165(3) Cr. P.C. for causing investigation. D.C., Central on his part sent that complaint to the O.C., Taltala P.S. for investigation and the police recorded the F.I.R. case on that basis and took up investigation and submitted a charge-sheet after investigation. After the filing of the charge-sheet the present petitioners filed an application before the trial Magistrate praying for their discharge from the case on the ground that the investigation was not legal as one complaint was already where with the police and as such second complaint is not tenable in law. Both sides bought over the issue armed with the decision in their favour. 2. The provision of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. contains that the Officer-in-Charge of a police station can take up investigation on receipt of a written complaint forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge concerned by the Magistrate with a direction to treat that complaint as F.I.R. Thus it appears that the provision of Section 156(3) confers the power or investigation to the Officer-in-Charge of a police station. Under subsection (1) the Officer-in-Charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable case and under subsection (3) any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr. P.C. may order such investigation as mentioned above, i.e., under Section 156(1). Therefore, the power has been given to the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Officer-in-Charge of a police station and not by any Superior Officer like D.C., Central. P.C. may order such investigation as mentioned above, i.e., under Section 156(1). Therefore, the power has been given to the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Officer-in-Charge of a police station and not by any Superior Officer like D.C., Central. Accordingly, the initial order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was wrong and not according to law. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings followed from that order all have turned bad and illegal. 3. It is true that the investigation was done by the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala P.S. but that was done at the behest of the D.C., Central, but the D.C., Central has not been empowered to direct the Officer-in-Charge under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to take up investigation. As such any such direction given by the D.C., Central to investigate on the basis of is the complaint that was sent to him under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C. was a direction without jurisdiction and without any suction of law. Therefore, the investigation taken up by the police in pursuance to such direction was also wrong and illegal. 4. Accordingly, in that light the prayer for quashing the Criminal case cannot be ignored or brushed aside. The investigation was bad-in-law and the entire case as such is not maintainable. The accused persons should be discharged. The Criminal case being Taltala P.S. Case No. 37 dated 31.1.95 as such is hereby quashed and the petitioners be discharged, but the de facto complainant in that case had no fault on his part. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the de facto complainant i.e. Md. Soleman had no fault to get remedy or relief from the local police station. But he had to approach the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) and from that point of time the error cropped up in investigation. The entire proceeding on such ground was vitiated. The de facto complainant, Md. Soleman should not be deprived of his legal remedy. He approached the Court but due to the faulty approach of the Court he has been deprived of legal remedy to which he was entitled. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the State that if the police according to the statutory function accepted the written complaint from the de facto complainant directly and would treat the same as F.I.R. all these troubles could have been avoided. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the State that if the police according to the statutory function accepted the written complaint from the de facto complainant directly and would treat the same as F.I.R. all these troubles could have been avoided. Whatever it may be, what is done is done. Now in the interest of Justice Direction is given to the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala P.S. to treat the written complaint that was tiled directly by the de facto complainant to the police station as F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr. P.C. and to take up fresh investigation according to law. The question of limitation, if there is any under Section 468 Cr. P.C. is hereby directed to be condoned in the interest of Justice. The revisional application is accordingly disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Asstt. Registrar (Court) is given to the learned Advocate for the State for communicating the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala P.S. for compliance.