Judgment :- V. Eswaraiah, J. The appellants are writ petitioners. They filed this appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2003 in W.P. 32343of 1998. The writ petition filed by them to quash the FIR in Crime No.65 of 1998 on the file of the Godavarikhani II Town Police Station, Karimnagar District as illegal, void and without jurisdiction, was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the writ petition. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the first petitioner married one Manjula on 10.3.1993, who died on 3.6.1997 allegedly committing suicide by hanging to fan at Quarter NoST2-2802, 8th incline colony, Godavarikhani wherein she has been residing with her husband/first writ petitioner. The second respondent who is father of the deceased, on the same day lodged a complaint with the police alleging that his daughter committed suicide due to dowry harassment made by her husband/first writ petitioner and the same was registered as Crime No.90 of 1997 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Godavarikhani and the first writ petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial remand on 12.6.1997. On 18.7.1997 a charge sheet has been filed under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently the above crime was numbered as PRC No.86 of 1997 and after committing the same it was numbered as S.C. No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Peddapalli, Karimnagar District and on formation of a new Court at Manthani, it was transferred and is now pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District. Thereafter, the father of the deceased/second respondent filed a private complaint on 13.4.1998 before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, Karimnagar District alleging that the investigating officer of Godavarikhani-II Town police station under the influence of the accused party has diluted the spirit of the case and build up a case under Section 304-B IPC against accused No.1 only; that he has submitted representations to Additional Superintendent of Police, Godavarikhani and also to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar requesting to take necessary action against the accused 1 to 7 and since no action was taken thereon has filed the private complaint against all the writ petitioners. The accused No.1 is husband, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents, the accused 4 and 5 are sister and brother-in-law and accused Nos.6 and 7 are uncle and aunt of first accused. It is stated that the fact of harassment made by the accused 1 to 7 on deceased was lately known to him and as such he has filed a private complaint on 13.4.1998 stating that during the Dasara festival the accused 1 to 7 have gathered at the house of accused No.2 at Gudipally village, and they have harassed the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. That the deceased was sent to Marlapet, where she informed about the incident to the complainant and after few days complainant took the deceased to the house of first petitioner and requested to live together with deceased and promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/-in due course of time and that in compliance of the same, kept Rs.50,000/-in a fixed deposit in the name of the deceased and gave the bond to the first petitioner. The first petitioner not being satisfied with the same, demanded the complainant has give a further sum of Rs.50,000/-in cash and accordingly the complainant has given Rs.50,000/-in cash to the first petitioner, who in turn kept the same in a fixed deposit with SBH 8th incline branch, Godavarikhani, in his name and after death of the deceased, has encashed the same. That on 22.5.1995 on the eve of marriage of one Katam Venugopal Reddy at Pegadapalli village all the accused 1 to 7 along with the deceased have gathered and during their stay at Pegadapalli, the accused 1 to 7 have demanded the complainant to give additional dowry Rs.1,00,000/-within 15 days to secure a job for the first accused in Singareni Collieries and after lapse of one week, on 3.6.1997 the complainant received the new of death of his daughter at Godavarikhani. The complainant represented before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial that earlier a case was registered by the Godavarikhani-II Town Police station and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manthani in Crime No.90 of 1997, which is now pending in S.C. No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar. In view of the said statement the private complaint was returned as the same shall be heard by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani. In view of the said statement the private complaint was returned as the same shall be heard by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani. On 16.4.1998, the Private complaint was resubmitted before the Judicial Magistrate at Manthani with a prayer to forward the same to the concerned police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said order, the Station House Officer, Godavarikhani II Town police station registered a crime in F.I.R. No.65 of 1998 under Section 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the writ petitioners/accused 1 to 7. The first respondent took up the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and arrested the petitioners 2, 4, 5 and 7 and they were remanded to the judicial custody. The second petitioner/accused filed a writ of heabeus corpus being W.P. No.27671 of 1998 to release the accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 and as per the interim directions of this Court dated 28.9.1998 in WPMP No.33636 of 1998, they were released. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P. No.32343 of 1998 to quash the F.I.R. No.65 of 1998 on the file of the Godavarikhani II Town Police Station, Karimnagar District. Initially interim suspension was granted by this Court on 24.11.1998 and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 4.4.2003. Mr. M.A. Bari, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that based on the complaint of the second respondent, Crime No.90 of 1997 was registered and after committal it was numbered as S.C. No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli and thereafter filing of a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year, cannot be referred by the Magistrate under Section 201 or Section 202 of Cr.P.C. for further investigation and the same is illegal. Further, as per the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 304-B of IPC which is triable by the Court of Sessions, in which event, the proviso to Section 202 of Cr.P.C. prohibits the Judicial Magistrate to direct investigation by the police officer. That the Magistrate has acted without jurisdiction in directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when already a complaint was filed the subject matter of which is S.C. No.14 of 1998. That the Magistrate has acted without jurisdiction in directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when already a complaint was filed the subject matter of which is S.C. No.14 of 1998. He further contended that since the case was triable by the Sessions Judge Court, the Magistrate has no power to refer the matter to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it was the contention of the learned counsel for second respondent that even where the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, the law does not prohibit the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when a private complaint is made. It is stated that insofar as writ petitioners/accused 2 to 7 are concerned the private complaint cannot be said to be a second complaint since the first complaint was made only as against the first petitioner/accused, therefore the Magistrate has rightly referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation by the concerned police. Both the parties cited various judgments before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge distinguishing the said judgments and held that the private complaint filed by the second respondent before the concerned Magistrate against the petitioners 1 to 7, is not a case where the second respondent gave a second complaint in relation to the same incident against petitioners 2 to 7 or for that matter petitioner No.1 as well. It was further held that at the time of taking cognizance after filing of the report by the police under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to apply his mind and decide as to whether or not to take cognizance of the case keeping in mind S.C. No.14 of 1998.That at the stage of taking cognizance, the complaint cannot be rejected only on the ground that the case is taken cognizance on a private complaint and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent and the Public Prosecutor at length. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent and the Public Prosecutor at length. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on the date of the death of the deceased, a complaint was given by the second respondent/father of the deceased alleging that due to dowry harassment, his daughter has committed suicide and based on the sane, Crime No.90 of 1997 was registered and after conducting investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which was committed to Sessions Court and made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli and numbered as S.C. No.14 of 1998 and on the self same allegations, the Second complaint is filed which is not maintainable and the reference made by the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is illegal and unsustainable. On the other hand, it is the case of the second respondent that subsequent to filing of the report, the second respondent came to know that pursuant to his earlier complaint, under the influence of the accused party in an effort to dilute the case and in order to help the accused, the Station House Officer has build up a case for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC only as against Accused No.1, which fact was lately known to him and immediately he made representations to the Asst. Superintendent of Police, Godavarikhani and also to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and no action was taken thereon and in the meanwhile a charge sheet has been filed as against accused No.1 alone. It is the specific case of the complainant that soon before the death of his daughter, accused 1 to 7 harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-at Pegadapally and a week later his daughter died at Godavarikhani. That the offence of demand of additional dowry originated at Pegadapalli and the concerned police heaving jurisdiction has to investigate the matter, as such, he filed a complaint requesting the Court to refer the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the complaint made before the Court cannot be said to be a second complaint as the police did not properly investigated the earlier complaint and the facts about demand of additional dowry has not been narrated in detail in earlier complaint. It is stated that insofar as accused 2 to 7 are concerned, the private complaint is the only complaint and unless the police investigates it, the truth will not come out. It is stated that as the Magistrate has not decided to enquire or examine the witnesses nor decided to postpone the process for filing a report either by the police or by any other agency, but chosen to forward the complaint to the concerned police for investigation under Section 156(3), therefore the exercise of power by the Magistrate cannot be said as illegal arbitrary. On receipt of information under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. the concerned police is empowered to investigate the cognizable offence. If any complaint is received by he Magistrate under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is also empowered to order such investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Under Section 190 the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon receipt of the complaint of an offence or upon receipt of a police report or upon information received from any person other than a police officer. Under Section 200, if a complaint is made before the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present and if he decides to take cognizance, he is entitled to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and if he is not competent to take cognizance, he shall report the same for presentation to the proper Court. Under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate, who is authorized to take cognizance decides to postpone the issue of process, either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he deems fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the offence is triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the Magistrate himself cannot enquire into the complaint and shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. If the offence is triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the Magistrate himself cannot enquire into the complaint and shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. In respect of complaint where the Magistrate postponed the issue of process by enquiring into the case by himself or direct investigation to be made by police or any other person and after such enquiry or investigation under Section 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint by a reasoned order under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. simply requesting the Magistrate to refer the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn the concerned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation. Admittedly, the Magistrate did not exercise his power under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., therefore the question of application of provisions contained in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. with regard to competency of the Magistrate or otherwise to take cognizance or with regard to the postponement of the issue of the process, does not arise as the Magistrate did not think it fit to postpone the issue of process for the purpose of deciding whether or not a sufficient ground for proceeding is made out. The Magistrate has simply referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and therefore it cannot be said that such order of the Magistrate is illegal. The Magistrate has simply referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and therefore it cannot be said that such order of the Magistrate is illegal. When a Magistrate receives a complaint disclosing cognizable offence either he may take cognizance or may forward the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. On receipt of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. either he can take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) or he may order investigation by police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In the instant case the Magistrate has not taken any cognizance, therefore has chosen to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, but only ordered for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. He did not examine the complaint or witnesses under Section 200 which is the first step in the procedure prescri9bed under Chapter XV, therefore, the question of taking the next step of procedure envisaged under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. did not arise. The issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioners/appellants is squarely covered against the appellants in the case of DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS Vs. V. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS ( 1976 (3) SCC 252 ), as the learned Magistrate while exercising his power under Section 190 read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., i.e., Chapters XII and XIV simply forwarded the complaint to the police and did not exercise his powers under Chapter XV. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under; (18.) In the instant case the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding; but only for ordering an investigation under Section 156 (3). He did not bring into motion the machinery of Chapter XV. He did not examine the complainant or his witnesses under Section 200, Cr.P.C., which is the first step in the procedure prescribed under that Chapter. The question of taking the next step of the procedure envisaged in Section 202 did not arise. Instead of taking cognizance of the offence, he has, in the exercise of his discretion, sent the complaint for investigation by police under S.156. The question of taking the next step of the procedure envisaged in Section 202 did not arise. Instead of taking cognizance of the offence, he has, in the exercise of his discretion, sent the complaint for investigation by police under S.156. (19.) This being the position, Section 202 (1), 1st Proviso was not attracted. Indeed, it is not necessary for the decision of this case to express any final opinion on the ambit and scope of the 1st Proviso to Section 202 (1) of the Code of 1973. Suffice it to say, the stage at which Sec. 202 could become operative was never reached in this case. We have therefore in keeping with the well established practice of the Court, decided only that much which was essential for the disposal o this appeal, and no more. The Supreme Court in ROSY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OFKERALA AND OTHERS ( 2000 (2) SCC 230 ), held that on a complaint made before the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it is open for the Magistrate either to examine the witnesses and if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he can straight away issue process. At that stage, the Magistrate has three options; i.e., (i) to issue process on the basis of complaint, if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused (section 204); or (ii) to dismiss the complaint (section 203); or (iii) to hold an inquiry (a) by himself, or (b) by directing investigation by the police officer, or (c) by any other person, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It is only if the Magistrate decides to hold an enquiry, the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. would come into operation. If the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate himself has to hold an enquiry and no direction for investigation by the police shall then be made. Inquiry can be held for recording evidence on oath and if he thinks fit, sub section (2) of Section 202 gives discretion to the Magistrate to record the evidence of the witnesses on oath. Then the next step after holding an enquiry is passing appropriate order of either dismissal of the complaint or issue of process. Inquiry can be held for recording evidence on oath and if he thinks fit, sub section (2) of Section 202 gives discretion to the Magistrate to record the evidence of the witnesses on oath. Then the next step after holding an enquiry is passing appropriate order of either dismissal of the complaint or issue of process. Only when the Magistrate decides to hold an enquiry by himself or by any other investigation agency while postponing the issue of process to find out whether there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not then Section 202 of Cr.P.C. applies. Otherwise, Section 202 of Cr.P.C., has no application in the absence of postponing the issue of process for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence on a complaint after examining upon the oath the complaint and witnesses present. If the Magistrate thinks fit to postpone the process and holds enquiry for the purposes of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the person/accused, such enquiry can be held by him or by police officer or any other person authorized by him. However, if the Magistrate simply exercises his power under Section 190 read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to forward the complaint for investigation by the police, the question of postponing the issue does not arise. Further, the Supreme Court in SHIVSHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ( 2012 (1) SCC 130 ), held that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts, provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint, which could have titled the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable in a case wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable in a case wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivshankar Singh case (cited supra), the complaint made by the second respondent disclosing the detailed facts about the demand of the dowry and consequent death of his daughter alleging involvement of accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it cannot be said that forwarding of the complaint by the learned Magistrate to the concerned police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., is illegal or unsustainable. The learned Magistrate has simply forwarded the complaint in exercise of powers under Section 190 read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and did not chosen to conduct an enquiry or postpone the process under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the reference made by the Magistrate is in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 190 read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the contentions raised by the writ petitioners/appellants and the writ appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.