B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 19-10-2001 passed in Cr. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 in C. F. No. 8056 of 2001 on the file of vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the order in Cr. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 in C. F. No. 8056 of 2001 on the file of Vth metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada can be quashed by this court, it may be necessary to note few relevant facts which are as under: the petitioner has been working as Non- medical Assistant in Siddhartha Medical college. There are civil disputes between his wife-Smt. Adusumilli Sridevi and Gokaraju ganga Raju (R-2 herein ). His wife filed o. S. NO. 191 of 1997 against K. Kami Reddy and Sujatha Shaha, who is no other than the benamidar and wife of an employee of R-2 herein, for a permanent injunction on the file of Principal Junior Civil, Judge, Mangalagiri. She obtained a temporary injunction against them in I. A. No. 1718 of 1997. One V. Indira devi also filed a suit in O. S. No. 268 of 1998 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, guntur for specific performance of agreement of sale and for a permanent injunction against kallam Rami Reddy and she obtained an interim injunction against the said Kallam rami Reddy from alienating the property. The petitioner filed a complaint against R-2 and others before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Mangalagiri on 4-6-1998 for the offences under Sections 420,506 (1) r/w 34 of ipc. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C. C. 359 of 2000 and issued NBWs against R-2 and others. R-2 and others appeared before the court and got the NBWs recalled. In spite of the orders of the court in civil suit, R-2 herein purchased the said property in dispute in the name of his son Rama Raju. R-2 herein who is said to have close contacts with R-4 and R-5 (Sudip lakatia and V. Gopala Krishna) filed a report on 30-10-2001 with R-5 (SHO, Patamata P. S.) alleging that the petitioner and his wife smt. A. Sridevi threatened him at his factory premises and demanded him to pay certain amounts. R-5 received the report and registered a case in Cr. A. Sridevi threatened him at his factory premises and demanded him to pay certain amounts. R-5 received the report and registered a case in Cr. No. 315 of 2000 under section 447, 384, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the instructions of R-4. It is alleged that R-4 issued instructions to R-5 knowing fully aware that the report lodged by R-2 herein is false and that R-5 arrested the petitioner on 14-10-2000-2000 at "5 p. m. at his resident and confined him in lock up illegally. The petitioner was produced before the court on 16-10-2000 ,and the learned Magistrate released him on bail. The wife of the petitioner smt. A. Sridevi surrendered before the court on 17-10-2000 and obtained bail. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 21420 of 2000 for declaration that the registration of case in cr. No. 315/2000 of Padamata P. S. was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India. R-5 filed counter in the said writpetition. After filing the Writ Petition it is alleged that the petitioner was called to the office of Commissioner of Police, vijayawada on 12th, 13th, 14/02/2000 and also on 30-9-2000 and pressurized to withdraw the cases filed by him against r-2 herein. That on 23-10-2000, 30-10-2000, 10-12-2000,15-12-2000,29-12-2000,13-1-2001 the police took the petitioner to the police station and forced him to withdraw the civil and criminal cases and that on 14-1-2001 R-5 and his friend tried to abduct the petitioner from his house. R-2 to R-5 put the petitioner and his wife in a predicament condition so as to succumb to the dictates of R-2. In these circumstances, allegedly the petitioner filed w. P. No. 654 of 2001 questioning the interference of R-4 and R-5 in the disputes between him and R-2 and this court directed r-4 and R-5 not to interfere with the civil disputes. R-5 and his men trespassed into his house, abused him and his wife in foul and filthy language and insulted the modesty of his wife. R-2 to R-5 demanded the petitioner to withdraw the case filed by him. The petitioner and his wife presented number of petitions to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Principal secretary to Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh etc. complaining the attitude of R-2 to R-5. R-2 to R-5 demanded the petitioner to withdraw the case filed by him. The petitioner and his wife presented number of petitions to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Principal secretary to Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh etc. complaining the attitude of R-2 to R-5. CB-CID enquired into the petition allegations and submitted a report to the Government. After the transfer of R-4 from Vijayawada Police commissionerate, the police filed final report stating that the case is Cr. No. 315 of 2000 is registered as a mistake of fact and thereby the crime registered against the petitioner and his wife came to be closed. The petitioner presented a complaint before Vth metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against r-2 to R-5 for the offences under Sections 177,220,323,327,330,341,342,348,448,506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. He also filed Crl. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 to refer the complaint filed by him to the CB-CID, Hyderabad for the purpose of investigation. It is averred in the complaint that the accused (R-2 to R-5 herein) are high ranking officials in the police department at Vijayawada and hence the station House Of ficer of the concerned police station may not be in a position to conduct impartial enquiry and hence sought for enquiry by CB-CID. I feel it apposite to refer the relevant portion of the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the court to refer the complaint to the CB-CID for investigation. "it is further submitted that as the 3rd accused was worked as Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada till June, 2001 and the 4th accused is working as Inspector of Police at Vijayawada, they are having enormous influence over the Vijayawada police. As such if the complaint is referred to the Vijayawada Police, they may not enquire into and investigate into the case properly and to take effective steps. It is further submitted that the Crime branch CID, at the instructions of the additional Director General, CBCID investigated into the matter and they also recommended to the State government to initiate necessary steps against the accused for the offences committed by them. As they have already investigated into the matter it is just and necessary to refer the matter to the Addl. Director General, CBCID, Hyderabad for the purpose of investigation. As they have already investigated into the matter it is just and necessary to refer the matter to the Addl. Director General, CBCID, Hyderabad for the purpose of investigation. It is further submitted that as the CID is an independent agency, the accused are not having any control or influence over the cid police. As such the chances of interfering or influencing the CID Police with their investigation by the accused may not arise. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, it is prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to refer the complaint to the additional Director General, CBCID, hyderabad for the purpose of investigation in the interests of justice. " ( 3 ) ON hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records, the learned Vth metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dismissed the application on the ground that he is not competent to direct the police officer other than the concerned Station House officer to investigate complaint allegation. Assailing the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001, the petitioner has filed this criminal Petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/ complainant contends that the lower court failed to note the fact that the persons involved in the crime are no other than the police officers and therefore there is every reason for the petitioner/complainant to apprehend that there would be no fair investigation on the complaint aftegations by the local police at Vijayawada. It is also contended by him that CBCID made certain enquiries on earlier occasion and seized the matter and therefore the CBCID is the appropriate authority to make impartial investigation on the complaint allegations. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public prosecutor that Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer incharge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such magistrate has jurisdiction and that he is not empowered to refer the complaint to CBCID for investigation. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Central Bureau af Investigation through Superintendent of Police, jaipur v. State of Rajasthar1. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Central Bureau af Investigation through Superintendent of Police, jaipur v. State of Rajasthar1. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/ complainant contends that the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared the office of the crime branch of A. P. Police as a crime station for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore the Magistrate is empowered to refer the complaint for investigation under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. to CBCID. ( 6 ) THE points that arise for determination in this case are that (1) Whether the Magistrate is empowered to refer the complaint under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. to CBCID for investigation? (2) Whether the apprehension of the complainant that the local police cannot conduct fair investigation is based on sound reasons?section 156_of Cr. P. C. reads as follows:"police Officer s power to investigate cognizable case:- (1) Any officer 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 such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of chapter XIII. (2) 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. (3) An Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. "an officer in charge of a police station is defined in Sec. 2 (o) of the Code. It is the following:"officer in charge of a police station includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the state Government so directs, any other police officer so present. "a police station is defined in Sec. 2 (s) of the code as follows:"police station means any post or place declared generally or specially by the state Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf. "a police station is defined in Sec. 2 (s) of the code as follows:"police station means any post or place declared generally or specially by the state Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf. "what emerges from a combined reading of the above definitions is this: A place or post declared by government as police station must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is next junior in rank present in the police station shall perform the function as officer in charge of that police station. The primary responsibility for investigation of a cognizable case reported in that station vests with such police officer. Section 156 (3) of the Code empowers a magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction. ( 7 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Moosa Haji2 that a magistrate cannot order any police officer, other than one who is in charge of the police station, to conduct the investigation. Under section 36 of the Code "police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. In appropriate cases the High Court can issue directions under article 226 of the Constitution for causing investigation to be made by such officers because such officers have the power to investigate. But such power of the government or the higher officer in the department is quite different from the scope contained in Sec. 156 (3) of the Code. There is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which confers power on a Magistrate to direct any officer other than an officer in charge of a police station to conduct investigation. ( 8 ) I may remind myself that this is application under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 in C. F. No. 8056 of 2001 on the file of vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. ( 8 ) I may remind myself that this is application under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 in C. F. No. 8056 of 2001 on the file of vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. What I mean to say is that this is not an application filed by the petitioner/ complainant under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court held in Om Prakash chugh v. State of Haryana and others3 as follows:"the complaint filed by the appellant before the Magistrate should necessarily be forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned as provided in Section 156 of the Code. Such officer has to register a FIR on the allegations contained in the complaint. If there is an aggrieved person on account of the investigation so carried on by the local police he can approach either the State government or the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate orders in the matter. "on elaborate consideration of the provisions of Sec. 156 (2) (a) and 2 (s) of the Code the supreme Court held that the Magisterial power cannot be stretched under Sec. l56 (3) beyond directing the officer of the incharge of the police station to conductinvestigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant contends that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 473 declaring the CBCID as a police station and therefore the magistrate is empowered to refer the complaint of the petitioner to CBCID, hyderabad for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code. Copy of the government Order,has been placed on record for perusal, which reads as follows:"in the circumstances reported by the director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in his letter read above, the Government declare the office of the Crime Branch, cid, Hyderabad as Police Station and all the Inspectors of CBCID, Hyderabad as officers in charge of the police station. The Government also direct all the officers of the CBCID to register cases only when ordered by the competent authority i. e. , Government of Andhra pradesh represented by the Chief secretary, the Home Secretary, Director general and Inspector General of Police and Special Inspector General of Police, crimes, incharge of CBCID, Hyderabad. The Government also direct all the officers of the CBCID to register cases only when ordered by the competent authority i. e. , Government of Andhra pradesh represented by the Chief secretary, the Home Secretary, Director general and Inspector General of Police and Special Inspector General of Police, crimes, incharge of CBCID, Hyderabad. Consequently, the following notification shall be published in the Andhra Prad esh gazette:- notification under Clause (s) of Section 2 of Cr. P. C. , 1973 the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby declares the office of Crime branch, CID, Andhra Pradesh as a Police station for the entire State of Andhra pradesh and directs that one of the inspectors of Police working in the said office nominated for this purpose by the head of the said office shall be the Station house Officer within the meaning of section 2 (a) Cr. P. C. for the said Police station. "it is explicit from the Government Order that it is only the government which is competent to refer the cases to CBCID for investigation. As decided by the Supreme Court in the (3) cited decision, the aggrieved party has to approach either the Government or the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate orders. In view of the above discussion, I find that Section 156 (3) of the code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer incharge of the Police Station to investigate cognizable offence with which such Magistrate has jurisdiction and it does not empower the Magistrate to refer the complaint to CBCID for investigation. Learned Magistrate considered the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme court on this aspect and refused to accede the request of the complainant to refer the complaint to CBCID for investigation. Hence, i do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. ( 10 ) IT is nextly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that r-4 and R-5 have earlier worked as police officers in Vijayawada and therefore there is every possibility of their interfering with the investigation by the local police. I do not see any valid ground for the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner since the same local police filed final report in Cr. No. 315 of 2000 which is registered against the petitioner/complainant and his wife stating that it is a mistake of fact. I do not see any valid ground for the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner since the same local police filed final report in Cr. No. 315 of 2000 which is registered against the petitioner/complainant and his wife stating that it is a mistake of fact. ( 11 ) IN the result, this Criminal Petition fails and the same is dismissing confirming the order dated 19-10-2001 passed in Cr. M. P. No. 4171 of 2001 in C. F. No. 8056 of 2001 on the file of Vth Metropolitan, magistrate, Vijayawada.