JUDGMENT : 1. This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-221 of 2013 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petition raises a question of law that once having taken cognizance in a private complaint, can the Court of learned Magistrate travel to pre-cognizance stage and pass an order of registration of F.I.R. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadresh S. Raju appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. is an outcome of the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Surat below application-Exhibit 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.880 of 2013. The learned advocate submits that on 27.08.2013, respondent no.2 has filed private complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. On 02.09.2013 the learned JMFC, Surat fixed the complaint for verification on 12.09.2013. On 12.09.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Surat carried out verification and passed order calling for report from the concerned Police Station. The learned advocate submits that after the report was received, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has proceeded to pass an order, the operative portion of which contains direction to the Police Inspector, Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat to register F.I.R. within three days for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioners relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Surani and others Vs. Chandrikaben Karshanbhai Surani and another, reported in 2008 (2) GLH 6 and submits that order dated 12.09.2013 of the learned JMFC, calling for report from the Police authorities on account of a complaint filed prior in point of time in connection with the very offence was purportedly an order in exercise of powers under section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The subsequent order dated 21.10.2013 directing registration of F.I.R. is an order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the court has committed error by sending the case to a pre-cognizance stage after having taken cognizance. The subsequent order dated 21.10.2013 directing registration of F.I.R. is an order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the court has committed error by sending the case to a pre-cognizance stage after having taken cognizance. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the basic order dated 21.10.2013 to register F.I.R. is also an outcome of an erroneous order and therefore, it is required to be quashed. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor drew attention of this Court to the contents of the private complaint which refers to the report of inquiry/investigation carried out by the Police authorities pursuant to written complaint given by the complainant for the very offence, and that opinion is arrived at two different levels by the Police officers that offence is made out and F.I.R. is required to be registered. She submits that in view of these clear-cut facts, the F.I.R. is required to be maintained and investigation is required to be proceeded with. 6. The learned advocate for respondent no.2- original complainant submits that there are two other petitions filed by the very petitioners which are in connection with the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners in connection with the related offence, where contention was taken that those F.I.Rs cannot be continued as the present F.I.R. is filed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath and the complainant cannot be rendered remedy-less. He made an attempt to submit that the order which is passed calling for report, in purported exercise of powers under section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be termed to be an order after taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, has traveled back to pre-cognizance stage by issuing order for registration of F.I.R. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record the following sequence of events comes on record. Private complaint is filed on 27.08.2013. In the private complaint the case is fixed for verification by order dated 02.09.2013. Verification was to be carried out by 12.09.2013. Verification is carried out by the learned JMFC on 12.09.2013. Private complaint is filed on 27.08.2013. In the private complaint the case is fixed for verification by order dated 02.09.2013. Verification was to be carried out by 12.09.2013. Verification is carried out by the learned JMFC on 12.09.2013. On the same day, an order is passed calling upon the concerned Police Station to submit report in connection with the written complaint made for the same offence, prior in point of time, to the Police Station. Thereafter, by order dated 21.10.2013 direction is issued to the Police Inspector, Athwa Lines Police Station to register F.I.R. within the period of three days of the order and pursuant to the order, F.I.R. is registered on 28.10.2013. 8. Law on this point is now well settled. Upon receipt of written complaint, when the learned Magistrate proceeds to record verification, which is action as contemplated under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance is already taken and therefore, after taking cognizance, option is available to the learned Magistrate to proceed ahead from that stage as contemplated under sections 202, 203 and 204, etc but in the instant case, the Magistrate’s Court has reverted to section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is the stage of pre-cognizance as is held by this Court in the case of Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Surani and others (supra). After considering several decisions on the point this Court has held that, 15. In the facts of the present case the learned Judicial Magistrate has examined the complainant on oath and has reduced the same in writing and has directed the concerned police officer to investigate into the matter and submit a report within 30 days. The fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate has examined the complainant on oath makes it evident that the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case. Therefore presumably the direction to the concerned police officer to investigate the case is passed under section 202 (1) of the Code. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed investigation by the police under the provisions of section 156(3) of the Code. A perusal of the certified copies of the complaint and the orders passed thereon does not indicate any further application having been moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate so as to necessitate the passing of another order on the complaint. A perusal of the certified copies of the complaint and the orders passed thereon does not indicate any further application having been moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate so as to necessitate the passing of another order on the complaint. Hence, it is not clear as to what prompted the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass the subsequent order directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. However without delving into that aspect of the matter, the main issue which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether after having taken cognizance of the offence by examining the complainant on oath, the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in directing investigation by the police under the provisions of section 156(3) of the Code? 16. In the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, the only answer to the said issue can be that once having taken cognizance of the offence by examining the complainant on oath and directing the police to investigate the case under section 202 of the Code, it was not legally permissible to the learned Judicial Magistrate to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and direct investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Though the order dated 13th November, 2007 does not clearly specify the provision under which it is made, considering the fact that the said direction has been given after examining the complainant on oath, the same can be construed to be an order under section 202(1) alone, as that is the only provision under which such direction could have been issued post-cognizance. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 suffers from the legal infirmity of being contrary to the statutory provisions and as such cannot be sustained.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. viz., C.R. No.I-221 of 2013 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat, which is an outcome of exercise of jurisdiction, which is erroneous in nature, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 10. However, where a complainant approaches the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class with allegations of offence having been committed, such complainant cannot be rendered remedy-less and therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal complaint filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Surat and registered as Criminal Misc. 10. However, where a complainant approaches the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class with allegations of offence having been committed, such complainant cannot be rendered remedy-less and therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal complaint filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Surat and registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.880 of 2013 is restored at the stage of calling for report by order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Surat. 11. The Court has not entered into the merits of the case and hence both the parties are left with the liberty to raise any contention available. 12. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.