JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard both sides. 2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate (VIth J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar) dated 5-12-1997 wherein he has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the first respondent and issued process under sections 304-B, 498-A, 302, 120-B read with 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners 1 to 8 (accused Nos. 3 to 10). This order arises out of a complaint filed on 3-4-1977 by the first respondent as Criminal Case No. 90/97 before the Magistrate. 3. The facts emanate from the complaint which are relevant for the purpose of this case, are that the complainant, i.e. the first respondent, is the father of Suvarna Anant Rane, who was married to accused No. 1 on 19-3-1995. At the time of marriage 25 tolas of gold ornaments and a cash of Rs. One lakh was exchanged in favour of the accused No. 1. After the marriage, the accused No. 1 and the aforesaid Suvarna were staying together at Janaki Apartment at Gandhi Chowk, Kulgaon, Badlapur, Thane District. Mother of the accused No. 1 was also staying with them. It is further alleged that those ornaments were taken by the accused No. 4, who is the sister of accused No. 1, on the pretext of keeping the said ornaments in a bank locker. Accused No. 1 was also paid another amount of Rs. 35,000/- as demanded by him for the purpose of purchasing a flat at Badlapur. Accused No. 1 wanted to complete the transactions of purchasing flat with the builder on or before 20-1-1996. For that purpose another amount of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded from Suvarna. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 used to visit matrimonial house at Badlapur occasionally when he gets leave because he is working in Pune. As certain other facts stated in the complaint are not very relevant, I do not mention them here. It is however sated in the complaint that during the Ganapati festival in 1995 deceased Suvarna and accused No. 1 decided to go to native place and when Suvarna demanded the gold ornaments taken away by Mrs. Desai, sister of accused No. 1, it was disclosed that accused No. 3 sister and brother-in-law of accused No. 1 were pledged those ornaments and availed loan. Desai, sister of accused No. 1, it was disclosed that accused No. 3 sister and brother-in-law of accused No. 1 were pledged those ornaments and availed loan. It is also averred in the complaint that accused No. 1 used to demand amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for making payment of instalment to the builder. Suvarna was working at Wagle Estate, Thane in Adivasi Kalyan Kendra and she used to visit the complainant twice in a week. During one of her such visits, she had disclosed to the complaint that accused No. 1 used to abuse, assault and threaten her and also used to ask her to bring the entire amount of the cost of the flat from her parents. It is alleged that she was also subjected to physical ill treatment, torture and cruelty. 4. On 16-1-1996 at about 4.00 p.m. and the complainant received intimation from Dr. Bharat Shah that his daughter Suvarna is very serious and he was asked to come to the hospital where she was admitted. When the complainant, went to Shruti Hospital, Badlapur, at about 7.15 p.m the complaint was told that his daughter was admitted by accused No. 3, brother-in-law of the accused No. 1 finding her unconscious. However the complainant was told by the doctor that she was brought dead to the hospital. On the post mortum conducted on the deceased Suvarna on 16-1-1996 and on the Chemical Analyser's reports, it was disclosed that, she was died due to consuming poison. The complainant made an allegation in the complaint that her daughter Suvarna died in a suspicious circumstances and therefore he reported the matter to the local police at Ambernath. However police has not taken cognizance of the offence. He then complained before the Magistrate that his daughter Suvarna was murdered by accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by poisoning her and she had an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 to 10 abetted and conspired to murder Suvarna and the murder has committed pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by them. This is in substance the complaint. 5. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 3-4-1997 before the Magistrate and after verification of the complainant. The matter has been referred by the Magistrate to the police under section 156(3) of Cri.P.C. calling for a report. This is in substance the complaint. 5. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 3-4-1997 before the Magistrate and after verification of the complainant. The matter has been referred by the Magistrate to the police under section 156(3) of Cri.P.C. calling for a report. The Crime Branch Thane, Ulhasnagar unit have filed their reports dated 1-8-1997 and 15-11-1997 along with the statements of witnesses Nos. 1 to 5. After perusing the report of the police, the Magistrate disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the police. In the order dated 5-12-1997 the learned Magistrate has stated thus :--- "Perused all the other documents annexed with the complaint. Admittedly by way of the police report as mentioned above police concluded that no offence is made out by way of their investigations. Nevertheless, going by the complaint Exhibit 1 and the entire documents on record along with the statements of the witnesses Nos. 1 to 5 examined by the police concerned, I am not prepared to accept the recommendations of the police that no offence is made out. On the contrary, on the basis of the material on record with police reports, I am inclined to take cognizance of the matter as per the provisions of section 190(1)(b) of Cri.P.C. ........... In my opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding further against all the accused. Issue process ..............". 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mundargi took me through the statements of the witnesses recorded. It is discernible from the report, excepting the statement of Smt. Taramati Baburao Rane, in no other statement, the petitioners (accused Nos. 3 to 10) were seen implicated. That too even going by the statement of Smt. Taramati Baburao Rane, accused No. 2 cannot be implicated at all. Mr. Mundargi, Counsel for the petitioners submit that Magistrate failed to state as to how and in what respect he differs from the police report. According to him, it is the duty of the Magistrate to state those reasons which persuade him to take cognizance of the complaint. I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 7. However, I am not, for the reasons stated hereunder, going to the facts of the case much in detail. Because it is a matter again for the Magistrate to examine. I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 7. However, I am not, for the reasons stated hereunder, going to the facts of the case much in detail. Because it is a matter again for the Magistrate to examine. But I have to state that the Magistrate ought to have, when he disagree with the police, stated the reasons as to how he does disagree with the police and on what materials. This is so because, a judicial authority is bound to act in conformity with the principle of natural justice and fair play. The responsibility of the magistrate is so high when he disagrees with the police, which report says that no offence is made out. In that circumstances a whole sum statement that he does not agree with the police report is not sufficient in compliance with the principle of natural justice and fairplay. The Magistrate should have atleast indicated in the order on what material he has placed reliance for taking cognizance of the offence. Taking cognizance of the offence is a serious matter, by doing so the Court is implicating a citizen to an offence and asked him to face the trial of the offence, which effects his rights and reputation. Therefore the accused is entitled to know particularly, when the police say that he cannot be implicated, on what ground he should be implicated. On perusal of the record I find that the Magistrate had directed the police on enquiry or investigation under section 156(3) of the Cri.P.C. It implies that he is not prima facie satisfied with allegations contained in the complaint. Supreme Court has laid down the difference between a reference of complaint to the police under section 156(3) and section 202 Cri.P.C. In former case he wants the police to conduct investigation on entire complaint and whereas in the latter case that Magistrate requires only some more details for proceeding further in the matter. This distinction, though very subtle, has clearly been brought out by the Supreme Court in (Devarapalli Lakshaminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1672. This distinction, though very subtle, has clearly been brought out by the Supreme Court in (Devarapalli Lakshaminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1672. It observes thus in para 17 : "Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII under the caption: "Information to the police and their powers to investigate"; while section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the hearing "Of complaints to Magistrate:-The power to order police investigation under section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognisance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back the pre-cognizance stage and avail of section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder to intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under section 173. On the other hand, section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Thus the object of an investigation under section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him." 8. Thus the object of an investigation under section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him." 8. It is therefore clear that a Magistrate is not making reference to the police for report under section 202 Cri.P.C. for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence, which he has already taken cognizance but only to proceed further in the matter. On the other hand, reference under section 156(3) only to activate the police to investigate about the complaints where as reference under section 202 is to collect further materials for the Court to proceed further. As pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioners, statements of Smt. Taramati Baburao Rane, if accepted as gospel truth, even accused No. 2 cannot be implicated. But in the order of Magistrate it is not clear what are the materials he was to rely on to take cognizance of the offence. 9. It is true that at that stage that the magistrate need not enumerate all the evidence in detail but still it is his duty to indicate based on what materials he has implicated the accused. Since this aspect of the matter is lacking in the order, the Magistrate's order suffers from the vices of non-conformity with the rules of principles of fairness and natural justice. For the said reason I set aside the order so far as the petitioners are concerned and remand the matter back to the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order. It is upto the Magistrate even at this stage to order reinvestigation of the matter for more cogent and reliable materials for taking cognizance of the case. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that when the Magistrate take cognizance of the offence under section 203, he need not state the reason in support of taking cognizance of the offence. On going through the record it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the Magistrate has exercised his power under section 203. As I indicated earlier after verification of the complaint, the Magistrate has straightaway referred the matter to the police under section 156(3). Therefore this argument of the learned Counsel is not very much material in the facts of the case. 11. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. As I indicated earlier after verification of the complaint, the Magistrate has straightaway referred the matter to the police under section 156(3). Therefore this argument of the learned Counsel is not very much material in the facts of the case. 11. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Magistrate is set aside as far as it relates to the petitioners concerned. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate for passing fresh orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ petition allowed. -----