Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 373/2016 by which the 1st Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition summarily filed by her affirming the order dated 15.7.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur by which learned Magistrate has declined to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner herein and dismissed the same filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

2. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant, would submit that the petitioner filed complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for registering the case under Sections 182, 332, 333, 500/34 and 120B of the IP, but learned Magistrate treated the case under Section 200 of the CrPC and examined the complainant herself as CW-1 and her witnesses Chandraprakash Patre (CW-2), Nisha Netam (CW-3), Mahesh Patel (CW-4), Anand Raghuwanshi (CW-5), Siddheshwar (CW-6) and Jagat Pathak (CW-7) and proceeded to try the application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC as complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC and directed the Station House officer, Police Station Rakhi to submit the report and on the basis of report, ignoring the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, dismissed the complaint, which has been affirmed in the revision also by the impugned order. He would further submit that application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the complainant to the Magistrate for direction to the police to investigate the case cannot be treated as complaint by the Magistrate. It can be treated only where the complainant so desires. Learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to convert the application under Section 156(3) the CrPC into complaint case against wishes of the victim and therefore, the impugned order as affirmed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered his submissions made herein and also gone through the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

4. The only question raised in this petition is whether the application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC can be treated as complaint and it can be proceeded with under Section 200 of the CrPC.

5. The question so raised herein is no longer res-integra and stands authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :-

"15. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the action taken by the Magistrate was fully supportable in law and he did not commit any error in recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter issuing process against the appellants. The High Court has discussed the points involved thread-bare and has also cited number of decisions and we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court. Thus on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the following legal propositions emerge :

1. That a Magistrate can order investigation under section 156(3) only at the precognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognizance under sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14 he is not entitled in law to order any investigation under section 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to section 202 he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by section 202 of the Code.

2. Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can adopt any of the following alternatives :

(a) He can pursue that complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightaway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of section 200 and record t