S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS relates to an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2 ) IT is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Sessions Court at calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1998. ( 3 ) BY the said judgment, learned Court of Revision confirmed the order dated 25th June, 1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 14th Court, Calcutta in G. R. Case No. 1102 of 1996 under Section 406/ 120b read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which corresponds to Shyampukur Police Station Case No. 150 dated 13th July, 1996. ( 4 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioners may briefly be stated as follows : ( 5 ) IN response to an application filed by Smt. Usha Mukherjee of 5, kashi Nath Ghat Street, Kolkata. wife of Sri Tapan Mukherjee, praying for referring a petition for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed before the learned Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, being numbered as C-298196, learned a. C. M. M. by order dated 10th July, 1996 passed an order directing investigation as prayed for against petitioner No. 2 only namely, Sri banamah Ghosh, A case being Shyampukur Police Station Case No. 150 dated 13th July, 1996 under Sections 409/406/34 of the Indian Penal code was registered ior investigation. Investigation was thus taken up but, unfortunately, in utter defiance of the order of the learned A. C M. M, calcutta, such investigation was not confined to petitioner No. 2 only After completion of investigation chargesheet dated 18th November, 1996 was submitted before the learned A. C. M. M. , Calcutta, stating, inter alia, that the case under Sections 406/120b of the IPC had been lound out. On 19th November, 1996 the learned A. C. M. M. took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the said chargesheet. Petitioners, thereafter, filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court calcutta to whom the case was transferred for trial on 25th June, 1998, with a prayer to drop the proceeding. Learned A. C. M. M. , 14th Court, calcutta, by order dated 19th November-, 1996 rejected the said application. Petitioners, thereafter, filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court calcutta to whom the case was transferred for trial on 25th June, 1998, with a prayer to drop the proceeding. Learned A. C. M. M. , 14th Court, calcutta, by order dated 19th November-, 1996 rejected the said application. A revision application was filed thereafter before the learned City Sessions court at Calcutta being Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1998, and, the learned judge, 13th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta by his judgment and order dated 19th January, 2001 while rejecting the said revision application confirmed the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th court, Calcutta. There has been consistent failure on the part of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge in appreciation of the fact that the allegations made against the present petitioners were based on inherent absurdity. It had been alleged that by an agreement three vehicles, described as Taxis, were transferred to the custody of petitioner No. 2 on 9th September, 1987 on the understanding that a monthly payment of Rs. 1050/- would be made to Smt. Usha Mukherjee and the there had been no payment from the middle of the year 1994. Complainant further alleged that the accused persons refused to return the vehicle on 1st June, 1996. Such allegations did not reflect any reasonable state of affairs, more so, where the de facto complainant was related to a Police Officer and was expected to know the consequences of an art depriving her possession and use of her properties. The purported agreement, copy of which was served upon the present petitioners in compliance with Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, did not indicate as to with whom such agreement was entered into. Section 93 of the indian Evidence Act, does not allow adducing any oral evidence in respect of a document which is clear and unambiguous. There had been failure by both the Courts i. e. , the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th court, Calcutta and the learned Judge, 13th Bench. City Sessions Court. Calcutta, to appreciate the difference between Section 157 and Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There had been further failure in not appreciating the fact that the allegations did not disclose any offence under Sections 406/120b/34 of IPC against any of the accused persons. City Sessions Court. Calcutta, to appreciate the difference between Section 157 and Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There had been further failure in not appreciating the fact that the allegations did not disclose any offence under Sections 406/120b/34 of IPC against any of the accused persons. In the circumstances, the present application has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated I9th January, 2001. passed by the learned City Sessions Court. 13th Bench. Calcutta in criminal Revision No. 44 of 1998 confirming the order dated 25th June, 1998 passed by the learned M. M. . 14th Court. Calcutta in G. R Case no. 1102 of 1996. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Sekhar Basu. appearing for the petitioners, at the very outset pointed out that there had been a total failure on the part of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta as well as learned Judge. City Sessions Court, 13th Court, Calcutta in appreciation of Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with Police Officers' power to investigate cognizable case. Clause (1) of the said Section 156 reads as follows: "any Oflker-in-charge of a Police Station may, without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of stich station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII" section 156 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is as follows : "no proceeding of a Police Officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. " it follows from Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code that any magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned' ( 7 ) IT appears that Smt. Usha Mukherjee filed a petition of complaint before the learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta against the present petitioners namely, Chaitanya Goswami and Banamali Ghosh as well as against one Basudeb Karar. Calcutta against the present petitioners namely, Chaitanya Goswami and Banamali Ghosh as well as against one Basudeb Karar. In response to the said petition of complaint, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 10th July, 1996 directed O. C. , Shyampukur Police Station to start a case and investigate under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code only against Banamali Ghosh, accused No. 2 in the petition. Learned Court further directed to report compliance by 16th August, 1996. ( 8 ) GRIEVANCES of the complainant in the said case may briefly be stated as follows: ( 9 ) PETITIONER's family had three taxi cars being No. WET-343, WET-6210 and WET-4568 which stood in the names of the petitioner, her mother-in-law late Radharani Mukherjee and Kamakshya Prosad Banerjee. father of the petitioner respectively. Since the petitioner's father became old and infirm, he by a letter pf authority empowered the petitioner to run the said taxi No. being WET-4568. Accused No. 1 was a family friend of the petitioner, accused No. 2 was under the employment of accused No. 1 and accused no. 3 was known to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 accepted the request of the petitioner and agreed to run the said taxies as her agent. He agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1050/- per month to the petitioner for the same. He further assured the petitioner that the vehicles would be maintained properly and would be returned on demand or on his own. On 9th September, 1987, the petitioner entrusted the said three vehicles to the accused persons when accused No. 1 told the petitioner that due to some personal difficulty he would not be able to sign the document and as requested by him, accused No. 2 signed the said document. The value of (he said three vehicles was to the tune of Rs. 60. 000/- only. Petitioner accepted the said proposal out of good relationship. Accused No. 1 signed as a guarantor along with accused No. 2 in the said document executed on 9th September, i 987. Ail the three accused persons conjointly took over custody, control and possession of the vehicles. This was followed by some payments having been made by the accused persons till the middle of the year 1994 and thereafter, they became extremely irregular in the matter of payment and ultimately stopped making any payment. Ail the three accused persons conjointly took over custody, control and possession of the vehicles. This was followed by some payments having been made by the accused persons till the middle of the year 1994 and thereafter, they became extremely irregular in the matter of payment and ultimately stopped making any payment. When asked by the petitioner, the accused persons told her that the vehicles had gone out of order. Petitioner asked for return of the vehicles but accused No. 1 refused to do so on 1st June, 1996. Petitioner was having reasonable apprehension that the said vehicles had been disposed of by the accused persons. In the circumstances, petitioner filed the said petition of complaint alleging that. ill the three accused persons conjointly committed offences punishable under Section 409/406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner sought for a direction upon O. C. Shyarnpukur Police Station to investigate the case in terms of Section 156 (3} of Criminal Procedure Code treating the said petition of complaint as FIR. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Sekhar Basu, appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the document which allegedly reflected entrustment of property. The said document bears the copy of the signature of accused No. 2 where accused No. 1 appears to have put his signature as guarantor. Attention was also drawn to a similar document on a stamped paper which, of course, appears to have been signed by accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 as described in the petition of complaint. Referring to the copies of the documents which were supplied to the accused persons, it was submitted by Mr. Basu that there was nothing before the learned Court so as to suggest that there had been any entrustment of the property by the petitioner in favour of either Sri chaitanya Goswami or Sri Basudeb Karar. ( 11 ) IT was further pointed out that Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure code deals with cognizance of offence by Magistrates. On receipt of a petition of complaint, Magistrate after taking of cognizance may postpone issue of process and may direct investigation of Section 202 of Criminal procedure Code. If the Magistrate feels that ther-- is prima facie material. process may be issued under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of a petition of complaint, Magistrate after taking of cognizance may postpone issue of process and may direct investigation of Section 202 of Criminal procedure Code. If the Magistrate feels that ther-- is prima facie material. process may be issued under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code. If the view of the Magistrate is that, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the complainl may be dismissed under Section 203 of Criminal procedure Code. A cording to Mr Basu, on receipt of a complaint and after examination of witnesses, the Magistrate may very well after taking cognizance of an offence direct issuance of process as against any or some of the accused persons named in the petition of complaint. It was further submitted that while directing investigation under Section 202 of Criminal procedure Code, Magistrate has the option to direct investigation against any or some of the accused persons. It was, thereafter, pointed out that learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta specifically directed investigation as against accused No. 2 while referring the petition of complaint to Shyampukur Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Such order, though made on the petition of complaint itself, was not sought to be assailed by the complainant. It definitely reflected application of mind on the part of the learned Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate and this could not be ignored by the investigating Officer while submitting chargesheet after completion of investigation against Chaitanya Goswami and Banamali Ghosh. ( 12 ) ). It was further submitted by Mr. Basu that on perusal of a complaint and examination of witnesses on solemn affirmation, the Magistrate has always discretion to issue process against any or all of the accused persons. Referring to this, it was submitted that in the backdrop of the present case, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 10th July, 1996 confined the scope of investigation and directed holding of investigation as against accused Banamali Gho'sh, i. e. . No. 2 only. According to Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in that view of the matter the Investigating Authority had no scope whatsoever to file chargesheet as against Chaitanya Goswami as well as Banamali Ghosh. ( 13 ) ). No. 2 only. According to Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in that view of the matter the Investigating Authority had no scope whatsoever to file chargesheet as against Chaitanya Goswami as well as Banamali Ghosh. ( 13 ) ). It was further pointed out that the order of taking cognizance did not reflect any application of judicial mind and that cognizance was taken in a mechanical manner. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel. Mr. Kasem Ali Ahmed, appeanng for the State of West Bengal strongly argued that learned Aditional Chief Metropolitan magistrate while referring the petition of complaint to Police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code had no business to direct investigation as against a particular individual. ( 15 ) THERE is no doubt that it is for the learned Magistrate to apply mind in order to ascertain as to whether a petition of complairit sought to be referred to Police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal procedure Code disclosed any prima facie case or not. It is not also necessary to ensure that such petition of complaint need also disclose alleged commission of a cognizable offence. ( 16 ) IN fact, on receipt of such a petition of complaint from a competent court of law, it is for the Police Authority while taking up investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code to treat the said petition as FIR. It as perhaps needless to add that though not specifically defined in the Code, cognizance means application of judicial mind for the purpose of proceeding further and cognizance is taken of an offence and not as against any individual. There may be occasions for the Police to take up investigation of cases disclosing allegations of commission of cognizable offences- where there is no mention at all of the name of the accused person. After all, while lodging FIR complainant is not expected in all situations to know the offender, it is for the Police Authority while investigating a case to find out the offender, whether named in the FIR or not and it Is for the Police Authority to unveil the mystery. ( 17 ) IN such backdrop, I am inclined to hold that learned A. C. M. M. , calcutta had hardly any justification to direct investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code against a particular individual. And. ( 17 ) IN such backdrop, I am inclined to hold that learned A. C. M. M. , calcutta had hardly any justification to direct investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code against a particular individual. And. I am unable to share the views of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that irrespective of the merit of the said order dated 10. 07. 1996 passed by learned A. C. M. M. , Calcutta, the Police Authority had little scope to ignore the direction of the learned Court and submit chargesheet against anybody except the said Banamali Ghosh and that too, without seeking permission from the learned Court of A. C. M. M. , Calcutta. ( 18 ) ). On careful consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, i am further inclined to hold that the order of taking cognizance' does not suffer from any sort illegality or infirmity or that the said order does not reflect any application of judicial mind. ( 19 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case I do not consider it necessary to point out that on receipt of a report giving the details of result of investigation, the Magistrate has the option of taking cognizance of an offence as suggested by the Investigating Officer, or to direct further investigation- and even not to take cognizance at all It is a question of application of judicial mind by the Magistrate to the facts and circumstances of a particular case as revealed from the report reflecting the result of investigation. ( 20 ) SECTION 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code no doubt is an extraordinary power, inherent in nature, of the High Court to make an order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of. justice But such inherent power need be exercised with utmost restraint and certainly not in order to enable a person to derive benefit out of it which may finally result in miscarriage of justice. ( 21 ) IN my opinion, the order which has been sought to be assailed herein does not call for exercise of any power under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the instant application being C. RR No. 572 of 2001 be dismissed. ( 23 ) "she judgment and order dated 19. 01. ( 21 ) IN my opinion, the order which has been sought to be assailed herein does not call for exercise of any power under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the instant application being C. RR No. 572 of 2001 be dismissed. ( 23 ) "she judgment and order dated 19. 01. 2001 passed by the learned judge, 13th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision no. 44/98 stands affirmed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated LCR. if any. be sent back to the learned Trial Court immediately. ( 24 ) XEROX certified copy, if any, be given to the parties on priority basis. Appeal dismissed.