Ranjeet Paswan v. Vinod Pandey), whereby application under Section

police to register an FIR and investigate the matter which was rejected vide impugned order dated

29.03.2022 on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature and it should not be made as criminal nature.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that from perusal of the material available on record, it is a case of cheating and fraud, therefore, prima facie offence is made out against the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned trial court did not assign any reason in the impugned order, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012). It is also submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in an arbitrary manner, and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the dispute is purely civil nature but the revisionist is trying to give the same to the colour of criminal nature. It is next submitted that the present revision is not maintainable against the order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the revisionist should file recovery suit against the said order. It is next submitted that no ingredient of cheating forgery or criminal conspiracy is made out against the opposite party no. 2. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In 4 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022 the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra) "Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application under section 156(3)Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"?

8. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. has answered the question as under:- "The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint." 5 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022

9. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima- facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra).

10. In the present case, revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act seeking a direction for registration of case against the opposite party No. 2 stating that he has committed fraud with him. The revisionist gave sum of Rs. 14,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 30,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 as loan amount and on being asked by the revision, the opposite party no. 2 has not repaid the said amount to the revisionist. In the complaint filed by the revisionist she had stated that she was beaten by opposite party no. 2 in which she sustained injury but no injury report has been 6 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022 filed by the revisionist alongwith complaint in support of her contention. It is evident from the records that the dispute is of purely civil in nature but the revisionist is trying to give it to the colour of criminal nature. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order impugned and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has rightly been rejected by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated

29.03.2022, as such, no case is made out for interference.

11. Considering the material facts, it cannot be said that impugned order is suffering from any such illegality, perversity or any other material irregularity. The present revision lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

police to register an FIR and investigate the matter which was rejected vide impugned order dated

29.03.2022 on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature and it should not be made as criminal nature.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that from perusal of the material available on record, it is a case of cheating and fraud, therefore, prima facie offence is made out against the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned trial court did not assign any reason in the impugned order, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012). It is also submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in an arbitrary manner, and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the dispute is purely civil nature but the revisionist is trying to give the same to the colour of criminal nature. It is next submitted that the present revision is not maintainable against the order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the revisionist should file recovery suit against the said order. It is next submitted that no ingredient of cheating forgery or criminal conspiracy is made out against the opposite party no. 2. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In 4 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022 the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra) "Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application under section 156(3)Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"?

8. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. has answered the question as under:- "The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint." 5 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022

9. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima- facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra).

10. In the present case, revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act seeking a direction for registration of case against the opposite party No. 2 stating that he has committed fraud with him. The revisionist gave sum of Rs. 14,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 30,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 as loan amount and on being asked by the revision, the opposite party no. 2 has not repaid the said amount to the revisionist. In the complaint filed by the revisionist she had stated that she was beaten by opposite party no. 2 in which she sustained injury but no injury report has been 6 CRLR No. 1935 of 2022 filed by the revisionist alongwith complaint in support of her contention. It is evident from the records that the dispute is of purely civil in nature but the revisionist is trying to give it to the colour of criminal nature. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order impugned and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has rightly been rejected by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated

29.03.2022, as such, no case is made out for interference.

11. Considering the material facts, it cannot be said that impugned order is suffering from any such illegality, perversity or any other material irregularity. The present revision lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad