Judgment The second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Dindigul, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegation is that a cheque belonging to the second respondent was stolen by the petitioner and subsequently, the same was filled up to his convenience to file the private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate referred the same to the first respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. The said order of the learned Magistrate, passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anand would submit that the prayer in the complaint itself was only to take cognizance on the complaint filed by the second respondent and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not within his competence to refer the complaint to the police for investigation. He would further submit that the case under Section 138 N.I. Act, filed on the basis of the said cheque in question, is pending before the same Magistrate and this complaint has been preferred only out of malice. 3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the first respondent has not so far registered any case on the complaint. However, enquiry is going on. 4. The second respondent has not made appearance since notice has not been served on him. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not legal or it is not within the competence of the learned Magistrate to refer the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the prayer itself is only for taking cognizance of the offences cannot be countenanced at all. It is needless to say that whenever a private complaint is filed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has got two options. The first option is to refer the complaint, without taking cognizance, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the second option is to take cognizance and to proceed further. It is needless to say that whenever a private complaint is filed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has got two options. The first option is to refer the complaint, without taking cognizance, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the second option is to take cognizance and to proceed further. If the Magistrate takes cognizance, he had to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and further to record the statement of witnesses, if any, under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, it is for him to decide whether to issue process for appearance of the accused or not. If he decides that there is no case made out, requiring to issue process to the accused, he would dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, he would issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 7. A perusal of the scheme of all these provisions, namely, Section 156, Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would go to show that it is well within the competence and power of the Magistrate to refer the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., without taking cognizance. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate has exercised his power rightly and there is no infirmity in the said order. 8. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel that the complaint has been filed with malice also cannot be considered at this stage. Whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not are all matters for investigation and this Court, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into those disputed questions to give a finding whether the complaint is false or true. 9. In the above stated circumstances, I do not find any ground to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that there may be a direction to the first respondent police to conduct fair investigation. 11. In my considered opinion such a direction need not be given, since it is the bounden duty of the first respondent to hold a thorough and impartial investigation. While doing so, the first respondent shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce his documents and evidence in respect of the allegations made against him. 11. In my considered opinion such a direction need not be given, since it is the bounden duty of the first respondent to hold a thorough and impartial investigation. While doing so, the first respondent shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce his documents and evidence in respect of the allegations made against him. The first respondent shall complete the investigation within a period of two months and file appropriate final report.