ORDER 1. Complainant is present Counsel for the complainant submitted that the above is case connected to forgery. Therefore he requested to refer the complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi for investigation. 2. It is well established Principle of law that in a Private Complaint it can not be referred to officer above the rank of P.S.I. Therefore, Refer the complaint to P.S.I., Manipal P.S. Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the investigation and to submit the report. Sd/ - Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and C.J.M. Udupi. 5. Referring to the above impugned order and placing strong reliance on the decisions reported in: (1) Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, (1999) CriLJ 3909 , (ii) AIR 2004 Kant. 43 (IP R Venugopal v. S M Krishna and Ors.)and (iii) Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, JT (2007) 11 SC 276 , Sri S G Bhagwan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners - accused contends that while passing the impugned orders under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the 'Magistrate has to apply his mind to the contents of the complaint for satisfying himself, whether they disclose any cognizable offence' and therefore all the impugned orders, which are passed by the learned CJM mechanically without applying his mind to the allegations therein, deserve to be set aside. He further contends that there is no indication in any of the impugned orders, that before referring the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation, the learned CJM applied his mind to the facts alleged in the said complaints in order to form an opinion that the said allegations make out, prima facie, any cognizable offence against the accused therein and therefore all the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. In first of the above said decisions, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners - accused i.e. in the case of Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, (1999) CriLJ 3909 this Court has observed as under: "Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974). 6. In first of the above said decisions, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners - accused i.e. in the case of Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, (1999) CriLJ 3909 this Court has observed as under: "Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974). Sections 156(3), 482 -Investigation- Powers of Magistrate -Complaint for offence under Section 167, Penal Code - Averments in complaint cryptic and not disclosing alleged offence - Order of Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) without applying his mind to allegations made in complaint - Is without jurisdiction - High Court either under Section 482 or under Article 226 of Constitution empowered to quash investigation. Para 10..... "Sub-section (1) of Section 156 confers on the police unrestricted power to investigate a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate or without a formal first information report. The police are entitled to investigate cognizable offence either on information under Section 154 or on their own motion, on their own knowledge or from other reliable information. This statutory right to investigate cognizable offence cannot he interfered with or controlled by the Courts including the High Court It is open to the Court to take or not to take action when the police prefer a chargesheet after investigation. But the Court's function does not begin until the chargesheet is filed. Under Sub-section (2) police can investigate any offence taking the matter to be a cognizable offence although ultimately charges are filed for a non-cognizable offence since while investigating a cognizable offence, the police are not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising out of the same facts and including it in the report to be filed by them under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) empowers the Magistrate to refer and direct the police to investigate a cognizable offence. But there is a restriction on the Magistrate before directing the police to investigate under Sub-section (3), the Magistrate should form an opinion that the complaint tiled by the complainant before him discloses a cognizable offence. When the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police investigation under Sub-section (3). In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. Such an order which is passed without application of mind is clearly an order without jurisdiction. When the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police investigation under Sub-section (3). In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. Such an order which is passed without application of mind is clearly an order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed directing the police to investigate under Sub-section (3) of Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by this Court either under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find from the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind before directing police investigation under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, If the Magistrate had applied his mind, the Magistrate could have found that no cognizable offence is made out even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted. We have already come to the conclusion that none of the complaints filed by the complainants disclose a cognizable offence alleged under Section 167, IPC. On this count alone the direction given by the Magistrate is liable to be quashed. Para 11. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure empowers Magistrate to order an investigation. Under Section 157(1), Code of Criminal Procedure an officer in charge of a Police Station having reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate should send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence upon a Police report and should proceed in person or depute one of his prescribed deputies to proceed to the spot to investigate Under Section 157(1)(a) when the offender is named and if the case is not of a serious nature the officer need proceed in person or depute his subordinate. Under Section 157(1)(b) if it appears to such Police Officer that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation he shall not investigate the case and the officer should inform the complainant under the prescribed manner. Under Section 157(1)(b) if it appears to such Police Officer that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation he shall not investigate the case and the officer should inform the complainant under the prescribed manner. Thus, the Police Officer who is empowered to investigate on the information received by him of the commission of a cognizable offence can decide whether there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation and if there is no sufficient ground he should not investigate the case. But once the Magistrate orders an investigationUnder Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure the Police Officer is bound to investigate the matter and there is no question of his deciding not to investigate. Thus, by an order of the MagistrateUnder Section 156(3) the discretion given to the Police OfficerUnder Section 157 is taken away. It is therefore very important that the Magistrate applies his mind and finds that the allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure before him disclose an offence. If every complaint filed under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure is referred to the police under Section 156(3) without application of mind about the disclosure of an offence, there is every likelihood of unscrupulous complainants in order to harass the alleged accused named by them in their complaints making bald allegations just to see that the alleged accused are harassed by the police who have no other go except to investigate as ordered by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and in only cases which disclose an offence, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to order an investigation by the police if he does not take cognizance of the offence. In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind has blindly ordered the investigation under Section 156(3) and the said order is, therefore, without jurisdiction. [Emphasis supplied by me] 7. In second of the above said decisions in the case of P R Venugopal v. S M Krishna reported in AIR 2004 Kant. In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind has blindly ordered the investigation under Section 156(3) and the said order is, therefore, without jurisdiction. [Emphasis supplied by me] 7. In second of the above said decisions in the case of P R Venugopal v. S M Krishna reported in AIR 2004 Kant. 43:The facts were as under: The complainant therein presented a complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure against the Respondents therein for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 34 IPC alleging that the Respondents had conspired and actually participated in the conspiracy for the release of the Cine Star. On the presentation of the complaint, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, referred the complaintUnder Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Ground Police for investigation and report in pursuance of the memo filed by the complainant on 11.2.2003. The Inspector of Police, High Ground Police Station, submitted a report expressing his inability to register a case on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence. After the said report was submitted, the learned ACMM issued notice to the complainant. He appeared and filed his objections with a prayer to reject the report of the police and to redirect the Station House Officer to investigate the matter under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned ACMM rejected the said objections and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the said complaint, the complainant had approached this Court. On the above facts, this Court observed at para 22of its order as under: Para 22: This makes clear that even for referring the matter for investigation, the Court has to apply its mind to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore, it has to be examined on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, whether there are sufficient materials to proceed with and to make a reference for investigation as prayed for by the Complainant under Section 155(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 8. In third of the above said decisionsi.e., in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. Therefore, it has to be examined on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, whether there are sufficient materials to proceed with and to make a reference for investigation as prayed for by the Complainant under Section 155(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 8. In third of the above said decisionsi.e., in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, JT (2007) 11 SC 276 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para No. 13of its judgment as under: Para 13: "Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind.The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the Respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. [Emphasis supplied] 9. Insofar as the allegations in the respective complaints in these three cases are concerned, when questioned by the Court, "whether the allegations in each of the said complaints make out any cognizable offence against the Petitioners - accused?" Sri S G Bhagwan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners -accused, fairly concedes that they do constitute one or the other of the cognizable offences alleged against the Petitioners. While conceding so, he further contendsthat there is no indication in any of the impugned orders made by the learned CJM that he applied his mind to the allegations in the respective complaints and therefore the impugned orders passed by him mechanically under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure referring the respective complaints to the police for investigation cannot be sustained in law. 10. 10. On careful reading of the facts in all the above said three decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners - accused, it is clear that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the allegations in the complaint in the respective cases, arrived at the conclusion that those allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence, much less, the offences alleged against the accused therein and therefore it was held in all the said three decisions that the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the allegations in the complaint and hence the impugned orders passed under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure were without jurisdiction. But, in the present cases, it is not in dispute that the averments made by the respective complainants in their respective complaints do make out prima facie case for one or the other cognizable offence against the Petitioners - accused. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners herein is that there is no indication in any of the impugned orders passed by the learned CJM that he applied his mind to the facts alleged in the respective complaints and formed his opinion that the allegations therein prima facie constitute any cognizable offence against the Petitioners - accused and therefore the said complaints deserved to be referred to the police as provided under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. I respectfully agree with the view taken by this Court in (i) Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, (1999) CriLJ 3909 and (ii) P R Venugopal -us- S M Krishna and Ors. AIR (2004 Kant. 43) and, I also follow the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, JT (2007) 11 SC 276 ]and hold that before passing an order under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure referring the complaint filed under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure to the police for investigation, it is necessary for the Magistrate to peruse the allegations made in the complaint and from his opinion that they disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Where the Magistrate does not do so, but mechanically passes order referring the complaint to the police for investigation, it may result in unnecessary harassment to the accused named in the complaint if the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence. Where the Magistrate does not do so, but mechanically passes order referring the complaint to the police for investigation, it may result in unnecessary harassment to the accused named in the complaint if the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence. In such an event, personal liberty and reputation of the accused named therein would be affected. Where the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence, the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure referring such complaint to the police for investigation would be an order without jurisdiction. Besides this, the police concerned would not be in a position to register any crime against the persons named in such complaint the allegations wherein do not disclose any cognizable offence against them. Therefore it is quite necessary that before passing an order Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure referring the complaint to the police for investigation, the Magistrate should apply his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and see whether the said facts disclose any cognizable offence and, if he forms an opinion that the said facts disclose a cognizable offence, then only he shall proceed to pass an order Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. It is pertinent to note that though it is laid down in all the three decisions referred to supra that before passing an order under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint and that such an order should indicate application of his mind by the Magistrate, in none of the said decisions, it is laid down as to what the learned Magistrate has to observe in his order passed under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, for referring the complaint to the police, in order to indicate that he applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint. In Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. In Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, (1999) CriLJ 3909 referred to supra, Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "We find from the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind before directing police investigation under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure If the Magistrate had applied his mind, the Magistrate could have found that no cognizable offence is made out even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted". Further, in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, JT (2007) 11 SC 276 referred to supra, Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted with approval, the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order, and the same reads as under: "It appears to the Court that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate in the matter. The impugned order, on the face of it, reveals that he has not gone through the complaint." It appears from the above observations in the said decisions that 'whether the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint or not' is to be found only on reading of the averments in the complaint. This is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have done in the said cases. 13. Application of mind to the facts alleged in the complaint is as an abstract act, which has to be found only on going through the facts alleged in the complaint. Since it is not in dispute that the allegations in respective complaints in the instant cases do disclose some cognizable offences against the revision Petitioners, it cannot be said, even following the observations made by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions, that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the allegations made in the respective complaints. 14. In order to indicate that he applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint, the Magistrate could have stated in the impugned orders passed under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure as "perused the allegations in the complaint" or "allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offence" or "the allegations in the complaint make out cognizable offence requiring investigation by the police" etc. If any of such statements is made in an order under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, one can make out from the order itself that the learned Magistrate applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint'. If such statement is made by the Magistrate in his order under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure there would be no scope for the Respondent - accused, as in the instant case, to challenge the correctness of such order on the ground that the learned Magistrate passed it mechanically without applying his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint. In order to avoid such a situation, it would be advisable that the Magistrate, while passing an order under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure shall make some observation therein as stated above indicating that he applied his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and formed his opinion that the said allegations disclose a cognizable offence and hence the complaint requires to be referred to the police for investigation as provided under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that though the learned Magistrate has not made any observation in any of the impugned orders indicating that he applied his mind to the facts alleged in the respective complaints, since it is not in dispute that the allegations in the respective complaints do make out one or the other of the cognizable offence alleged against these Petitioners - accused, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, all these three Criminal Petitions are hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.No order as to costs. 16. The Registrar Judicial shall send a copy of this order to all the learned Principal District and Sessions Judges in the State with a direction to circulate the same amongst, all the Magistrates working in their respective units.