JUDGMENT 1. INVOKING Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petitioner made a complaint before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 384/386/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties, praying that the said complaint be sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Beniapukur Police Station directing him to treat the same as First Information Report and to cause investigating thereupon. However, the Learned Magistrate refused to invoke the power conferred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took cognizance of the alleged offences on such complaint. Hence, this criminal revision. 2. HEARD the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record as well as the petition of complaint. In spite of repeated calls none appears on behalf of the private opposite parties. The affidavit of service showing service has been effected filed in Court be kept with the records. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that such provisions enables a Magistrate to refer a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences to the police for investigation of such offences of which he may have taken cognizance under Section 190 of the Code, if the Court after prima facie consideration of materials on record comes to a conclusion that the case in question requires an investigation by the police. Therefore, in order to exercise power under Section 156 (3) of the Code two things are essential, firstly, the allegations contained in the complaint must prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and, secondly, the Court satisfies from the materials on record that for collecting of evidence relating to the commission of offence and for discovery of the offenders and the offending articles and to unearth the truth behind the allegations made in the complaint, police investigation is necessary. Even where on the allegations contained in the complaint discloses commission of prima facie offence, the Court is not bound to refer the matter to the police invoking its power conferred under Section 156 (3) of the Code, unless Court finds that such investigation by the police is necessary and without referring the matter to the police, the Court after taking cognizance, may proceed with the case according to the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code. The complainant has no choice in this regard nor can insist a Court to take recourse to any particular procedure. The nomenclature under which the complaint is made nor the prayer of the complainant has any relevancy. The Magistrate should not necessarily pass any order for police investigation in a routine way, merely because the complainant made a prayer for the same. Where in a case on the materials already on record, no further investigation by the police is required for launching a successful prosecution, the Court would be fully justified to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code and to proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code. 3. SO far as the case at hand in concerned it is the case of the complainant that he took a loan from the accused/opposite parties against payment of interest. Although the complainant regularly paid the interest until July 2009 but requested the accused person to forgo the interest and promised to return the principal shortly. In the meantime, on November 18, 2009 the accused persons called the complainant to his residence where the complainant went in his Indigo Car, WB-02Z-1890 with two of his friends, viz., Abhinay Pandey and Mukesh Agarwal. When the accused persons asked the complainant to pay at once Rs. 2 lakhs and as the petitioner expressed his inability to keep such demand he was filthily abused and the accused threatened him to confine them in his house. Thereafter, the accused persons forced the complainant to sign on a blank stamp paper and on three other blank papers. The complainant was also forced to sign in Form No. 29 and 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in money receipt and out of fear of death the complainant put his signature on the said documents as asked by the accused persons. The said accused persons also threatened him that unless he put his signature as asked by him he would kill the complainant and his two friends. Thereafter, the accused persons snatched away the keys of his car under threat and fled away with the said car. On the next day the complainant also met the accused person and requested him to return the car but the car was not returned, and is still not traceable. Thereafter, the accused persons snatched away the keys of his car under threat and fled away with the said car. On the next day the complainant also met the accused person and requested him to return the car but the car was not returned, and is still not traceable. The complainant lodged a Diary to the local police station but no step was taken. 4. NOW, without entering into the truth or falsehood of those allegations as made in the petition of complaint, I find this is the case of the complainant that the accused allegedly extorted from the complainant some valuable papers, viz., two blank Form No. 29 and Form No. 30 and a few blank papers signed by him by putting him in the fear of death as well as stolen away his motor car. In such view of the matter, in this case not only the recovery of those documents as well as the stolen car are necessary, in my opinion this is a fit case where police investigation is also equally necessary. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the Learned Magistrate is directed to pass necessary order in terms of the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application stands allowed. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.