MAYANGLAMBAM ACHOU SINGH Vs. NINGTHOUJAM ONGBI RASHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") is directed against the order dated 1.7.89 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel in his Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1989. On 1.7.89 the Respondent No. 1 Smt. Ningthoujam Ongbi Rashi Devi filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel against the Petitioner alleging, inter - (sic), that her husband Ningthoujam Angou Singh was murdered on (sic) by Shri Mayanglambam Achou Singh (Petitioner) and some case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, passed an order on 1.7.89 directing and Officer -in -Charge of Chandel Police Station to investigate the case and submit the report as early as possible. The order is very brief (sic) it reads as follows:

(2.) SHRI N. Kerani Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has strenuously urged that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in law in passing the impugned order inasmuch as it violates the proviso to Sub -section (1) and proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 202 of the Code Shri Ahanthem Nilamani Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, forcefully submits that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in passing the impugned order and that there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order.

(3.) NOW , the expression "take cognizance" has not been defined, when the Magistrate on receiving a complaint applies his mind for proceeding under Sections 200 and 203, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If be takes action of some other kind, such us, issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. Cognizance is taken upon complaint when process is issued, but not restricted interpretation can be given to -the phrase. On this point, we may refer to the decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshminarayana Reddy and Ors., Appellants v. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors., Respondents : AIR 1976 S.C. 1672.