ORDER : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1.This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2023 arising out of the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application filed by Respondents under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and vide impugned Revisional order dated 27.09.2023, the Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for fresh adjudication giving direction to treat the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as complaint and proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC. 2.Facts of the case, in brief are that, elder brother of the respondent No.1 namely Krishnachand died issue less, therefore, lands bearing khasra Nos, 307/1 area 0.04 acres, 308/1 area 0.02 acres, 297/2 area 2.40 acres, 386/4 area 0.51 acres, 386/6 area 0.51 acres, 309/2 area 0.01 acres, 310/1 area 0.02 acres, 383/3 and 384/3 area 4.11 acres, 340/1 area 0.06 acres and khasra No. 38/1 & 38/2 area 0.83 total 8.51 acres are situated at village Bijore, Patwari halka No. 20 Revenue Circle, Bilaspur, thus respondent No.1 became the owner of the entire lands. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 with his wife in connivance with the government officers have prepared forged Will in the name of their sons and mutated their names in the revenue record. On this, the applicants and respondents have kidnapped Dwarikadish Sahu/respondent No.1 on 07.02.2018, took him to unknown place where they have committed marpit with him and forcefully obtained thumb impression on the documents, for which victim’s wife made written complaint before police Station- Sarkanda on 27.02.2018. Since no action was taken by the Police despite written complaint filed before Superintendent of Police, Inspector General of Police and Mahila Aayog, as such, complainant/ Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of the FIR against the applicant No. 1 to 3 and respondent no. 5 and 9 for commission of offences under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 365,194, 198, 324, 329, 307, 403, 417, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for alleged torture and abduction on 03.10.2019. 5 and 9 for commission of offences under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 365,194, 198, 324, 329, 307, 403, 417, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for alleged torture and abduction on 03.10.2019. 3.Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 10.12.2022 has rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that no such document was filed that the police station in charge has refused to register the FIR and denied to investigate the matter, as such there is non-compliance of section 154(1) CrPC and accordingly it has rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. 4.Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 10.12.2022, Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a revision before the Court of third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur who vide the order dated 27.09.2023 has partly allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and directed to treat the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as complaint and proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC. Hence, this revision. 5.Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from perversity and illegality and same deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that learned revisional Court has issued direction under Section 156(3) CrPC without considering the fact that whether Magistrate applied his mind or not and finds a case to proceed further or not. He would further submit that there is delay in filling of the complaint as after six month of alleged incident application under Section 156(3) has been filed and on this court alone the revision should have been dismissed by the revisional Court. He would further submit that the learned revisional Court has committed illegality in directing the trial Court to follow the procedure of chapter XV of the CrPC which is prescribed for private complaint and there is vast difference between the power to be exercised under Section 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC. He would further submit that from perusal of order sheets of JMFC it would be clear that the trial Court has already proceeded for following the procedure under Section 156(3) CrPC as on 12.10.2018 the Court has already called report from Police Station Civil Lines which has been received on 05.07.2019. He would further submit that from perusal of order sheets of JMFC it would be clear that the trial Court has already proceeded for following the procedure under Section 156(3) CrPC as on 12.10.2018 the Court has already called report from Police Station Civil Lines which has been received on 05.07.2019. He would further submit that again learned Magistrate has called for report on 18.08.2020 and thereafter the matter was fixed for argument, as such direction for following the procedure under Chapter XV is illegal and the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the report dated 22.01.2020 which has been submitted by the State in his return clearly establishes that the allegations made in the complaint are false, as such also no case is made out against the applicants for proceeding further. He would further submit that as per section 154(1) of CrPC the complainant is required to give complaint before Police Station and to the State when police fails to take action on the complaint which has not been followed by the complainant, therefore, learned JMFC has rightly dismissed. Thus learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality and irregularity in passing impugned order which deserves to be quashed by this Court. 6.Counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that from the scheme of chapter of XII and chapter XV of the CrPC it is clear that to contemplate two different situations. Chapter XII deals with the power of the Police Authority to investigate in respect of cognizable offence on receipt of information thereof and chapter XV deals with the complaint filed before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the learned magistrate to proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC since both modes of investigation are available as such no irregularities have been committed by the Revisional Court and thus pray for dismissal of the revision. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat 2010(4) SCC 185 and also referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SAS infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 2574 of 2024 on 14th May, 2024. 7.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4 State would submits that learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order as the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, suffers from grave irregularity and illegality and would pray for dismissal of the present criminal revision. 8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9.From the submission made by counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination by this Court are as under:- (I) Whether the direction for investigation to the police amount to taking cognizance of the offence?. (ii) Whether learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was justified in directing to Magistrate to follow the procedure under Chapter XV Crpc when the Magistrate has already directed the police to investigate the matter? Point No. 1. 10.In order to appreciate the first point for determination it is necessary for this Court to understand the concept of cognizance with regard to provisions of CrPC. It is quite clear that “cognizance” has not been defined under the CrPC. To unveil the legal quandary, a brief survey of 'Cognizance' would illuminate everything, clearing all concepts; therefore, this Court is referring to various legal dictionaries and judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court to examine the word cognizance. New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, (1988) New York, defines the word cognizance as, "The range of mental observation or awareness, the fact of being aware, knowledge, (Law) the powers given to a Court to deal with a given matter, jurisdiction." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines word 'Cognizance' rooting from Old French "conis(s)aunce, as "Knowledge, understanding, acquaintance, awareness," and in the context of LAW as, "Acknowledgement, esp. of a fine; admission of an alleged fact." Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edition), defines Cognizance as follows, Cognizance (Judicial), knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence: as the public statutes of the realm, the ancient history of the realm, the order and course of proceedings in Parliament, the privileges of the House of Commons, the existence of war with a foreign State, the several seals of the King, the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction, and many other things. A Judge is not bound to take cognizance of current events, however notorious, nor of the law of other countries. A Judge is not bound to take cognizance of current events, however notorious, nor of the law of other countries. The meaning of Cognizance given in Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, reads as under:- Cognizance:- (1) Court’s right to determine cases jurisdiction, (2) the taking of jurisdiction authoritative notices. (3) acknowledgment or admission of the alleged facts, Acknowledgment of a fine. 11.Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Jamuna Singh Vs. Bhadai Shah AIR 1964 SC 1541 , Darshan Singh Ramkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 1 SCR 571 , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of W.B 1973 (3) SCC 753 , Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy AIR 1976 SC 1672 , Kishun Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar 1993(2) SCC 16 , State of W.B. Vs. Mohammed Khalid 1995(1) SCC 684 , Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani 2000(7) SCC 183 , Bhagat Ram Vs. Surinder Kumar 2004(11) SCC 22, S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd 2008(2) SCC 492 , Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(5) SCC 424 , Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director 2014(2) SCC 62 has examined the cognizance taken by the Magistrate with regard to paralance of CrPC and has held that issuance of direction to the police for investigation does not mean that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the complaint, therefore, cognizance takes place at a point when magistrate takes judicial notice on an offence. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, either on receiving a complaint or on a police report or on information otherwise received. Where a complaint is presented before him, he can under Section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has then to examine the complainant and his witnesses. The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is sufficient ground or not for proceeding, than only it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is sufficient ground or not for proceeding, than only it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that taking cognizance of an offence" by the court has to be distinguished from the filing of the complaint by the complainant. Taking cognizance would mean the action taken by the court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence regarding which the complaint is filed. Before it can be said that any Magistrate or Court has taken cognizance of an offence it must be shown, that he has applied his mind to the facts for the purpose of proceeding further in the matter at the instance of the complainant. If the Magistrate or the Court is shown to have applied the mind not for the purpose of taking action upon the complaint but for taking some other kind of action contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure such as ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issuing a search warrant, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. 12.From the above stated legal proposition, it is clear that taking cognizance of an offence by the Court is different from filing of the complaint by the complainant. Taking cognizance would mean the action has been taken by the Court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence regarding which the complaint is filed, as such the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class taking cognizance of the complaint cannot revert back and follow the procedure as defined under chapter XV of CrPC is misconceived as no cognizance of the complaint has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, direction passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to follow procedure of Chapter XV of the CrPC cannot be said to be suffers from perversity or illegality which warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the point No.1 is answered against the applicants by recording a finding that no cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while directing for calling investigation report by Police. Point No.2 13. Thus, the point No.1 is answered against the applicants by recording a finding that no cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while directing for calling investigation report by Police. Point No.2 13. In order to appreciate the second point it is necessary for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure particularly Sections 156, 190, 200, 201, 202, and 203 which are as under:- 14.156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable 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. 15.Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate- 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. (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. 16.Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with complaints to Magistrates. It has four sections from Section 200 to Section 203, which run thus: “200. (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. 16.Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with complaints to Magistrates. It has four sections from Section 200 to Section 203, which run thus: “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. 17.Section 201 – Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case- If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence he shall, (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court. 18. Section 202 - Postponement of issue of process:- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of 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 is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises 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 witness 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 them 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 Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without Warrant. 19.203- Dismissal of complaint:- if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. 20.From the above provisions of Cr.P.C., it can be seen that on a complaint being filed before the Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. Thus, the procedure which has been prescribed in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., is at pre-cognizance stage i.e., to say before taking cognizance under Sections 190, 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C., if a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter XIV, he is not entitled to order any investigation under Section 156(3) whereas in the case in hand once the Magistrate has directed for investigation to the police it cannot be said that he has taken cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint and the Judicial Magistrate has applied his mind. It is quite vivid that before adopting the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVI in a pre-cognizance stage Magistrate can very well issue direction. It is quite vivid that before adopting the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVI in a pre-cognizance stage Magistrate can very well issue direction. When, the Magistrate applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issue a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. Section 156(3) appears in Chapter XII which deals with information to the Police and the powers of the Police to investigate a crime. This Section is placed in a chapter different from Chapter XIV which deals with initiation of proceedings against an accused person. It is, therefore, clear that Sections 190 and 156(3) of Cr.P.C., are mutually exclusive and work in totally different spheres. In other words, the position is that even if a Magistrate receives a complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., he can act under Section 156(3) and he does not take cognizance. Therefore, the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) of the Code to order for investigation by the Police has not been touched or attached by Section 202 because these powers are exercised even before cognizance is taken. In other words, Section 202 of Cr.P.C., would apply only to cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance and chooses to inquire into the complaint either himself or through any other agency. But, in the present case, Magistrate has not taken any cognizance on the complaint only direct for investigation and thereafter dismissed the complaint which has been quashed by the learned Second Additional Sessons Judge and directed for following the procedure under Chapter XV of the CrPC which cannot be said to be suffered from illegality or irregularity. 21.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various judgments has examined scope of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and categorically held that the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. is before taking cognizance of the complaint stage whereas cognizance of the complaint is taken as per Chapter XVI of the Cr.P.C. which is subsequent stage. 22.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Das vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1961 SC 986 , Tula Ram and others Vs. Kishore Singh 1977 (4) SCC 459 , H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. 22.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Das vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1961 SC 986 , Tula Ram and others Vs. Kishore Singh 1977 (4) SCC 459 , H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1980 (4) SCC 631 and has held that when on a petition of complaint being filed before him a Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint. When however he applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under section 156(3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. Thus point No.2 is answered against the applicants. 23.Considering the above stated legal position and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in these circumstances the inescapable conclusion is that in the present case the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the case and ordered investigation by the police under section 156(3) is before applying his mind to the complaint. This being the position it was always open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint and dispose it of according to law, that is to say according to the provisions of sections 190, 200 and 202 of the CrPC, as such the order passed by learned Second Additional Session Judge in directing learned Magistrate to follow chapter XV of the CrPC cannot be said to be suffered from irregularity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. 24.Accordingly, the revision petition is sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed.