ORDER
V. Eswaraiah, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is tiled to quash the order dated 9-3-2005 in Crl. M.P. No. 869 of 2004 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in Crime No. 173 of 2004 of Karkhana Police Station.
2. It is stated in the petition that the first respondent Smt. P. Ranganayakamma filed a private complaint before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioners herein alleging that her husband has purchased a plot bearing No. :23 admeasuring 464 Sq. yards in Sy. No, 157/ 8, situated at Thokatta village, Secunderabad vide registered document No. 2581/1984, dated 15-10-1984 and her ‘husband died on 18-8-1990 and therefore, she became the owner of the said property; The second petitioner is the President of the Gun-Rock Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad and the said ” society cancelled the registration without assigning any reason vide document No. 838/2001, dated 17-5-2001 in the office of Sub -Registrar, Bowenpally and without giving any notice either to her or to her deceased husband.
3. It is further stated that all the accused have connived and conspired arid in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they cancelled the sale deed of her husband and sold the said property in favour of Arjun Reddy-A5 vide document: No. 134/2002. The third petitioner Dr. N. Shanta Rao forged the signature of one Smt. Saraswathamma as a witness in the said document knowingly that she is not Saraswathamma. The petitioners 2 and 3 are son and daughter-in-law of Saraswathamma. It is stated that all the accused knowingly, dishonestly and fraudulently and in order to deprive the right of the complainant, forged the signature of Saraswathamma and obtained the sale deed. Thus, all the accused have committed an offence punishable under Sections. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
4. The said complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, Karkhana Police Station under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “the Code”) for investigation. On receipt of the complaint from the Court, the police registered a case in Crime No. 173 of 2004 and after investigation they filed a report bearing No. 59 of 2004 dated 19-10-2004 stating that during the course of investigation, it is established that the husband of the complainant late Seshaiah was a member of the Gun Rock Enclave Co-operative Housing Society and he was allotted a plot bearing No. 23, admeasuring 464 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 157/8, situated at Thokatta village, Secunderabad. As per the bye laws of the society, the allottee shall construct a house within one year from the date of allotment. Accordingly, the society gave notices to said Seshaiah on 16-11 -1991 and 27-6-1995 to proceed with the construction. In response to the said notices, the husband of the complainant gave a letter to the society on 3-8-1.995 requesting the Managing Committee to transfer the plot in favour of his sister Smt, N. Saraswatamrna. Accordingly, the Managing Committee approved the request of the allottee and trans-furred the plot in favour of Smt. Saraswathamma vide its resolution dated 29-8-1995. Said Saraswathamma was in abroad, as such, they informed that the actual transfer formalities would be carried out on her arrival to India vide their letter dated 12-9-1995. As per the request of the allot tee (husband of the complainant), a cancellation deed was executed on 17-5-2001 cancelling the sale deed No. 2581/1984, dated 15-16-1984 by the President of the Society-A2. Subsequently, said Saraswathamma through her letter dated 18-1-2002 requested the society that she is an old woman and she has no intention of constructing the house on the said plot and requested the society to transfer the plot in favour of their family friend Arjun Reddy. Accordingly, the society executed the sale deed in favour of Arjun Reddy on 28-1-2002 vide document. No. 134/2002. The complainant did not raise any objection nor approached the Court to establish her right, over the property. During his lifetime, the original allot-tee-Seshalah requested the society to transfer the plot in favour of his sister-Saraswathamma. The complainant never raised any objection before the society about the transfer and therefore, the allegations are proved to be false.
5. On the report filed by the Investigating Officer, the complainant filed a protest petition in Crl. M.P. No. 869 of 2005 under Sections 173, 156(3) and 482 of the Code stating that the police never called her to produce any evidence and that they have not conducted any investigation arid not examined her and therefore, the report is erroneous and she requested to refer the matter to C.B.C.I.D. The learned Magistrate while disposing the said protest petition observed that the Investigating Officer filed the report No. 59 of 2004 without application of mind and understanding as to what: was the nature of offence and how the matter has to be investigated. It was further observed that the Sub-Inspector of Police who laid the charge-sheet lost sight of the fact that an old lady made a complaint, alleging that the accused without her consent. and without any justification transferred the plot stood in the name of her husband. Therefore by applying judicious mind, since the police under the jurisdiction of the Court did not make proper investigation and it. is just and necessary that the matter requires to be investigated by the C.B.C.I.D., under Section 173(8) of the Code, and therefore, the learned Magistrate allowed the said protest application. Aggrieved by the said order, this Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 428 (482) of Criminal Procedure Code.
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Under Section 156( 1) of the Code, any officer-in-charge of a Police Station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable 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. Under Section 156(3) of the Code any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code, may order such an investigation. Under Section 190 of the Code, the jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts or upon a police report, or upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate permitted the C.B.C.I.D., to investigate the matter and file a report under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Magistrate has got power only to order further investigation directing the officer in charge of the Police Station, but he has no power to direct any authority other than the officer in charge of the Police Station. Reading of Section 173(8) of the Code makes it clear that if any report has been forwarded to the Magistrate, the Magistrate is not precluded from ordering further investigation directing the officer in charge of the Police Station alone, but he has no power to order to investigate by any officer other than the officer in charge of the Police Station. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P., Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, . In the said case, the learned Magistrate directed to investigate the matter by the CBI. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the CBI, contending that under Section 156 of the Code, an officer in charge of the Police Station is alone entitled to investigate any cognizable offence and the Magistrate is also got the same power under Section 156 of the Code directing the officer in charge of the Police Station to investigate the cognizable offence. The Supreme Court held that the magisterial power under Section 156(3) of the Code cannot be stretched beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation and accordingly, set aside the order of the Magistrate, but it would not prejudice any investigation to be conducted on the FIR, registered or to be registered by the police station concerned in respect of the complaint involved in the said case.
9. In the case of Hemanth Dhasmanna v. Central Bureau of Investigation, , the Supreme Court held that on receipt of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code stating that no offence is committed by the accused, then the Court may accept and drop the proceedings or the Court may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence and, issue process if it takes the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further or the Court may direct further investigation to be made by the police, but, the Magistrate is not empowered to direct particular police officer or even an officer of the particular rank to conduct investigation. Under Section 173(8) of the Code the Magistrate is empowered to order further investigation by the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station alone.
10. There is no dispute that the Court may disagree with the report and also take cognizance or direct further investigation to be made by the police. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the Magistrate directing the CBCID, to conduct investigation in the matter goes beyond the scope of his power under Section 173(8) of the Code.
11. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate rightly expressed his opinion stating that the Police did not understand the scope of Investigation and report was filed without examining the complainant.. The averments made in the report filed by the police strengthens the contention of the complainant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate himself could have taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded further instead of directing further investigation by CBCID. No useful purpose will be served by directing again to investigate the matter by the same Station House Officer. The learned Magistrate rightly expressed his opinion about the way in which the officer in charge of the Police Station investigated the matter and filed a report.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad dated 9-3-2005 in Cri. M.P. No. 869 of 2004 in Crime No. 173 of 2004 of Karkhana Police Station in directing the CBCID, to conduct investigation is set aside, and the learned Magistrate himself may take cognizance of the offence and proceed against the accused in accordance with law. The Criminal Appeal is allowed as indicated above.