(1.) NOTICE to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with since the matter is under inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code").
(2.) PETITIONER is the complainant in Crl. M.P. No.1386 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor which is a complaint preferred under Section 190 of the Code for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 465, 467 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It would appear from the petition that without directing investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and recorded sworn statement of petitioner. At that stage petitioner wanted the investigation to be conducted by the police as provided under Sec.202(1) of the Code. That request has been turned down by the learned Magistrate as per the impugned order 12.11.2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel contends that the learned Magistrate was under the impression that once cognizance is taken under Sec.200 of the Code no investigation could be conducted through the police under Sec.202(1) of the Code which according to the learned counsel is patently erroneous. Reliance is placed on the decision in Biju Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2008 [3] KLT 85) and Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujrat ([2010] 4 SCC 185). I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
(3.) ON the question whether such investigation is required learned Magistrate himself has opined that the offences relating to cheating, forgery etc., could be revealed only through investigation by the police. Hence there is no reason why request of petitioner should be disallowed. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Order passed by the learned Magistrate on Crl. M.P. No.1386 of 2010 on 12.11.2010 is set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to order an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as the learned Magistrate thinks fit and as provided under Sec.202(1) of the Code.