Rejection of a Section 156(3) application does not bar a complaint under Section 200.

The Applicant and Respondent No. 2 are brothers and former directors of Unicom Skytech Limited. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the Applicant forged a 2014 company-meeting notice and relied on it in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal.

The Applicant’s father had earlier filed a proceeding seeking investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; the Magistrate rejected that prayer and disposed of the proceeding.

In revision, the Sessions Court observed that the complainant could file a complaint case, as the earlier proceeding had not been pursued under Sections 200–202 CrPC.

Respondent No. 2 then filed a complaint under Chapter XV; after recording his statement, receiving handwriting-expert evidence, and obtaining an enquiry report under Section 202, the Magistrate issued process against the Applicant under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.

The Sessions Court dismissed the Applicant’s revision, and he sought quashing of both orders before the High Court.

Whether rejection of the earlier application under Section 156(3) CrPC barred a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC on the same allegations.

Whether the Magistrate’s order issuing process under Sections 465 and 471 IPC, and the Sessions Court’s order affirming it, warranted interference.

Section 156(3) CrPC concerns pre-cognizance police investigation, whereas Sections 200–204 operate after the Magistrate takes cognizance; an enquiry under Section 202 assists the Magistrate in deciding whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.

Rejection of an application under Section 156(3) does not, by itself, preclude a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

Although a second complaint on the same facts is generally entertained only in exceptional circumstances when an earlier complaint was dismissed on its merits, that restriction did not apply where the earlier proceeding had only sought Section 156(3) investigation and had not proceeded as a complaint under Chapter XV.

The Court also relied on the distinction between the remedies under Sections 156(3) and 200 recognised in *Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P.*

The High Court found that the earlier proceeding had ended with rejection of the Section 156(3) prayer and had not involved examination of the complainant or an enquiry under Chapter XV.

The Sessions Court had expressly noted that a complaint case could subsequently be filed, and the later complaint followed that course.

In that complaint, the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement, considered the pre-process evidence, directed a Section 202 enquiry, and issued process after receiving the report.

Applying the distinction between pre-cognizance investigation and post-cognizance complaint procedure, the Court held that the second complaint was not barred.

It therefore found the Sessions Court’s decision consistent with law.

The application was dismissed; the Magistrate was requested to take up the matter expeditiously.