DROPADI Vs. MUNNA LAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against a summoning order.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this application are rather unusual, Opposite party No. 1 Munna Lal, alleging himself to be husband of applicant, Smt. Dropadi, made complaint to the Magistrate against Smt. Dropadi, her relations and applicant No. 2 for offence of bigamy under Section 494, I. P. C. He alleged abetment of the offence by the relations of Srnt. Dropadi applicant No. 2 Ram Awtar.

(3.) THERE are two provisions in the Code for directing police investi gation, namely, Sees. 156 (3) and 202 (2 ). Both these provisions are indendent of each other. Once a Magistrate has taken cognizance of a Complaint, he cannot direct police investigation unless he has examined the complaint and witnesses present on oath under Sec. 200, Cr. P. C. But if he has not taken cognizance, he has jurisdiction to direct police investigation under Section 156 (3 ). In that event for taking cognizance he has to rely upon police report. Whether the Magistrate took cognizance of the case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.