ORDER :

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.02.2017, passed in Criminal Revision No. 202 of 2016, whereby learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) dismissed the criminal revision filed by petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner made written complaint on 30.04.2014 before Police Station – Nandini Nagar, Ahiwara, Tahsil – Dhamdha, District – Durg alleging that respondent No.1 obtained her affidavit and committed forgery and she was impersonated by other women in the mutation proceeding initiated before Tahsildar, Ahiwara and got registered the ancestral property in his name after death of her father on 15.06.2007. Police authorities have not taken any cognizance on the complaint submitted by her, therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which was dismissed in an arbitrary manner without considering the provision under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. in its entirety. The order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the offence reported to the Police Station is cognizable offence, therefore, the police authorities were duty bound to register FIR based on the complaint lodged by her. Learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. considering that petitioner has already filed civil suit and the allegations are still to be decided in civil proceeding pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that there was civil dispute with respect to the ancestral property between petitioner and respondent No.1, who are real brother and sister. After death of their father, petitioner to take her share in the property has filed civil suit and thereafter only to pressurize respondent No.1, false complaint was made against respondent No.1. He also contended that mutation proceeding dated 15.06.2007 is in accordance with law based on the documents executed by petitioner. After sometime as petitioner changed her mind, has made false allegation against respondent No.1. He also contended that mandatory provision under Criminal Procedure Code before filing application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has not been followed. Petitioner has even not submitted affidavit in support of application filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., which is mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. He contended that in the aforementioned decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in categorical terms has observed that if for any reason the Station House Officer failed to register first information report on the complaint received under Section 154 (1), the aggrieved party has to submit an application to the concerned Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. No such application was submitted by petitioner, therefore, application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was not tenable.

5. Learned State counsel adopts the argument raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submits that the order passed by learned Sessions Court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

7. Perusal of Annexure P-3 would show that petitioner made a written complaint against respondent No.1 on 30.04.2014. Relationship between petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute that they are real brother and sister. The disputed property which is the root cause of the proceedings initiated by petitioner is ancestral property. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.1 got executed her affidavit for some other purposes and the same has been used in the mu