JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in complaint No. 6 of 2011 whereby the trial Court declined to send the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed a complaint tinder Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. before the A.C.J.M. Sikar. The A.C.J.M. declined to send the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner filed the petition challenging the order of the A.C.J.M. rejecting the prayer of the complainant for sending the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Police Station concerned but the A.C.J.M. passed the order for recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.2.2011. This order of the A.C.J.M. has been challenged in the instant case. 4. Mr. Anil Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the complainant has filed the complaint for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and from the facts and circumstance taken therein the matter deserves to be instigated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the police but the A.C.J.M without looking to the seriousness of the allegation opined that there is no justified reason to investigate the case by the police. The A.C.J.M. has not exercised its power and discretion as per Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C objectively while not sending the case for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereas the complaint is for cognizance offences and therefore matter should be investigated by the police concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr., 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 154 . 5. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the A.C.J.M. has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sending the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station concerned and directed the petitioner to give his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. He stated that the order rejecting the prayer is just and proper. 6. 6. Hear learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length. 7. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are as under: 156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. (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) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) Upon a police report of such facts, (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. 200. Examination of complainant. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. 200. Examination of complainant. - A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the Witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses (a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint, or (b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. 202.Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused so is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercise his jurisdiction. postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by, a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, (a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions or (b) Where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine then on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an Officer In-charge of a Police Station except the power to arrest without warrant. 8. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an F.I.R. involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the Police Station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation tinder Section 156(3) of the Code that an F.LR. should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the Police Station to register the F.I.R. regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter. [See Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 628 ]. 9. But in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185 , the Apex Court held as under: "18. The power to direct an investigation to the police authorities is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The only difference is the stage at which the said powers may be invoked. But in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185 , the Apex Court held as under: "18. The power to direct an investigation to the police authorities is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The only difference is the stage at which the said powers may be invoked. As indicated hereinbefore, the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct an investigation by the police authorities is at the pre-cognizance stage while the power to direct a similar investigation under Section 202 is at the post-cognizance stage. The learned Magistrate has chosen to adopt the latter course and has treated the protest petition filed by the Appellant as a complaint under Section 200 of the Code and has thereafter proceeded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and kept the. matter with himself for aninquiry in the facts of the case. There is nothing irregular in the manner in which the learned Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of Sub-section (2) of Section 202 the learned Magistrate deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 or proceed in terms of Section 193 and commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and another is not applicable to the facts of the case 4s in that case the petitioner challenged the directions of the C.J.M. to register F.I.R., charge sheet filed after investigation and the cognizance taken by him. 11. In the instant matter the Magistrate after taking into consideration the complaint filed by the complainant directed for recording of the statement of the complainant before proceeding further and this order of the Magistrate in my view does not call for any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has only rejected the prayer of the complainant for sending the complainant to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before recording his statement. It is true that the Magistrate has power to send complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but at the same time it is necessary for him to at least look into the complaint and whether prima facie any offence is made out or not has to be looked into by him before sending the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation or to record the statement of the complainant to find out whether any offence is made out or not on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant before him. 12. It has been noticed by this Court in number of cases that the judicial Magistrates are sending the complaints filed by the complainants without going through the contents of the complaints to the Police Stations concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is true that the Magistrate is having discretion to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station, but before sending the same the same should have been examined cautiously and if his conscious allows him to do so it should be sent to the concerned Police Station or to take steps in accordance with law. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. The order passed by the A.C.J.M. dated 23.2.2011 does not call for any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer of the complainant for sending the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station concerned before recording the statement of the complainant was rightly rejected by the A.C.J.M. The A.C.J.M. is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 14. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send copies of this order to all the Sessions Judges in Rajasthan and the Sessions Judges may be requested to send copies of this order to all the judicial Magistrates in his jurisdiction for proceeding in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******