JUDGMENT Mrs. Bhatkar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Applicants challenge the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate the matter pursuant to the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 3. Respondent No.1, the original complainant, has filed a complaint against the petitioner accused in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune alleging that the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy have been committed by the accused in respect of the execution of the power of attorney, development agreement and conveyance in respect of the land in village Mundwa, District Pune. Prior to this complaint to the Magistrate, he has filed a written complaint before the police. However, police did not take any cognizance of the same. Hence, a private complaint was filed on 10.5.2010, [at exhibit I to the petition] requesting issuance of process under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed order on the same day i.e., 10.5.2010 that the private complaint u/s 120B/419, 420, 426, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal code be registered and put up for verification. On 22.6.2010, the next date learned Magistrate ordered investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. A short point involved in this petition, is, for our consideration. Whether order dated 10.5.2010, passed by the learned Magistrate amounts to taking cognizance of the offences or not? 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and gave directions to register the complaint and place the matter for verification; thereafter the learned Magistrate cannot go back to pre-cognizance stage and pass order u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said order is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel relied on the judgments in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 252 ); Tula Ram & Ors. vs. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459 )and Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. vs. M/s. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.1377 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3267 of 2010 & anr). 6. The learned Counsel relied on the judgments in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 252 ); Tula Ram & Ors. vs. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459 )and Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. vs. M/s. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.1377 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3267 of 2010 & anr). 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the earlier order does not disclose that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter but has specifically fixed the matter for verification i.e., the examination of the complainant. The learned Counsel argued that in the absence of verification of the complainant, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued process under the relevant sections. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the learned Magistrate may be said to have taken a step towards issuance of process and thought of issuing process and he kept the matter for verification. However, on the next date, he did not call for verification of the complainant but opted to invoke the powers u/s 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the police to investigate the matter. Under such circumstances, the order is not illegal. 7. Let us examine the procedure step by step to be followed by the Magistrate when a private complaint is filed before him. A complaint can be filed requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence only u/s 190 of the Cr. P.C. As the complaint is received by him, the Magistrate has two options – firstly, he can take cognizance of the offence and to go for verification by examining the complainant and issue process u/s 204. If the Magistrate on taking cognizance, thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or by such other persons u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. Issuance of process and taking cognizance are two different stages. Cognizance precedes issuance of process. The second option open to the Magistrate is not to take the cognizance but pass an order u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the police to investigate the offence. It is clarified that direction of investigation under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Is at pre-cognizance stage while direction of investigation under section 202 of Cr. Cognizance precedes issuance of process. The second option open to the Magistrate is not to take the cognizance but pass an order u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the police to investigate the offence. It is clarified that direction of investigation under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Is at pre-cognizance stage while direction of investigation under section 202 of Cr. P.C. is post-cognizance stage. 8. It is useful to recapitulate the scheme of issuance of process and of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Chapter XII is in respect of information to the police and their powers to investigate. The learned Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may direct the police to investigate. Chapter XIV is about the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. The power to take cognizance of the offence is conferred upon the Magistrate u/s 190. Three circumstances enabling magistrate to take cognizance are incorporated in section 190 of Cr.P.C., namely, (a) upon receiving complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. It is to be noted that the word “cognizance” and the word “process” are not defined anywhere in the criminal law. Chapter XV deals with the complaints to Magistrate. U/s 200, the Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offence on complaint as contemplated u/s 190 filed by the complainant other than the police officer, is required to examine the complainant. For Judges and lawyers, the word 'cognizance' is often found very slippery to fix its exact starting point. However, the meaning of cognizance is not a res integra. 9. In Tularam vs. Kishore Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has aptly expressed in paragraph 8 - “…......... It seems to us that there is no special charm or any magical formula in the expression "taking cognizance" which merely means judicial application of the mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to, taking further action. Thus what section 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegations made. In the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. Thus what section 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegations made. In the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. …..........................” Thus, application of mind is entirely an invisible action which can be projected and sensed only after its manifestation, i.e., through words. The process is understood when words indicate a particular step taken by the magistrate, it manifests the application of mind. 10. The Magistrate derives power to take cognizance only u/s 190 of the Cr.P.C. The section is reproduced as follows: “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second 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. 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.” 11. Thus, under section 190(2) the Magistrate “may take cognizance of any offence”. In order to understand the stage of the cognizance and the power of the Magistrate under section 190, let us see the language used in section 156(3): “156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case. (1) …. (2) …. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. Thus, the section states “any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation”. Section 156 governs source of getting power to the police officers to investigate the offence. Therefore, this section is not a source of power of the Magistrate of taking cognizance. It only refers to a class of a Magistrate or a Jurisdiction of a Magistrate, i.e., who is empowered u/s 190, may order the investigation. Thus, it refers that a Magistrate, who is competent to take cognizance of the offence may direct police officer to investigate. Chapter XII spreads over from section 154 to section 176. Thereafter, Chapter XIV is in respect of the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Thus, it refers that a Magistrate, who is competent to take cognizance of the offence may direct police officer to investigate. Chapter XII spreads over from section 154 to section 176. Thereafter, Chapter XIV is in respect of the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. The first and foremost condition to initiate proceedings is a cognizance of an offence taken by the Judge.” 12. Let us advert to another important aspect of the issue. Section 200 opens with words, viz. “a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall examine upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present”. The opening words are “a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence”. This can be compared with section 190 where it says “a Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence”. Thus, the words “a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence” contemplates that a Magistrate has entered into the process of taking cognizance of an offence u/s 200 and then he decides to examine the complainant. The phrase “taking cognizance” in the said section necessarily means an act or process of taking cognizance by the Magistrate. Therefore, taking cognizance is an adjective attributing action of entering the process of cognizance. It is more distinguishable on comparison of words used in sections 190, 156(3) and 204 of the Cr.P.C. In support of this interpretation, we may take help of section 204 of the Cr.P.C. wherein in the beginning it states: “204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be – …....... …......” 13. Thus, the phrase repeatedly used is “Magistrate taking cognizance”. This shows that the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the offence or who has completed the mental activity of taking cognizance and then he can think of issuance of process or he may postpone the issuance of process but ask the police to enquire or investigate into the matter. This is unlike the phrase used in Section 156(3) or 190 of Cr. P.C. “Magistrate empowered to take cognizance” which is an adjective clause of Magistrate carving out a class of Magistrate enjoying particular jurisdiction. 14. Section 190 empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance and gives discretion to take cognizance or not as the word “may take cognizance” is used in subsection (2) of section 190. P.C. “Magistrate empowered to take cognizance” which is an adjective clause of Magistrate carving out a class of Magistrate enjoying particular jurisdiction. 14. Section 190 empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance and gives discretion to take cognizance or not as the word “may take cognizance” is used in subsection (2) of section 190. On the other hand, in section 200, the phraseology that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present” is used. Verification of the contents of the complaint is necessary for the purpose of confirmation and support of the act of taking cognizance. Examination of witnesses or verification of the complaint by examining the complainant on oath is not a pre-requisite of taking cognizance. Once the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, it should entail the examination of the complainant on oath. 15. The order in dispute is reproduced for better understanding thus: “A private complaint by Maruti Gaikwad u/s. 120B/419, 420, 426, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. It be registered and put up for verification.” The order manifests that the Magistrate made up his mind to register the complaint under the said offences. A specific order “it be registered” and prior mention of the sections, unambiguously indicate that the learned Magistrate has disclosed his mind that the complaint is to be registered. He has taken the cognizance of the offences, namely, sections 120B, 419, 420, 426, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and then further directed to “put up for verification”. Thus, directing to put up the matter for verification is a stage which succeeds when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence by registering the complaint. Thus, the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the Magistrate is not a pre-cognizance stage. Therefore, by order dated 22.6.2010, the Magistrate could not have asked the police to carry on proper investigation as per the provisions u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The directions in section 156(3) are necessarily at a pre-cognizance stage. 16. Hence, the Magistrate cannot go back once he has already taken cognizance of the offences. In absence of the order dated 10.5.2010, the order dated 22.6.2010 would have been legal. However, when he has already taken the cognizance, the order dated 22.6.2010 directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is bad in law. Hence, the same is set aside. 17. Hence, the Magistrate cannot go back once he has already taken cognizance of the offences. In absence of the order dated 10.5.2010, the order dated 22.6.2010 would have been legal. However, when he has already taken the cognizance, the order dated 22.6.2010 directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is bad in law. Hence, the same is set aside. 17. Accordingly, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).