Point of law: although Sec. 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and / or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Criminal Revision Application under section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original complainant challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.1074 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which the trial court rejected the application preferred by the petitioner observing that no complaint filed before the Court for committal of offence for which the Court take cognizance or issue a direction for investigation to the police and it is misinterpretation on the part of the petitioner regarding principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the prayer prayed by the petitioner is not according to law and hence the same cannot be granted and so the present the is not maintainable and it is rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as under :

Land bearing Survey Nos.179, 80 and 229 of village Katargam, Surat were owned and occupied by the father of the petitioner. After death of her father, accused persons got revenue entry No.8219 mutated in the revenue record by creating forged documents and specifically an agreement dated 18.03.1993 in the name of the petitioner by putting forged signatures of the petitioner, to show that the petitioner has waived her right from such lands and also made a bogus statement before the revenue authority and thereby the name of the petitioner came to be deleted from the revenue record of such lands and thereby the accused have committed serious and cognizable offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

2.1. That the petitioner filed a written complaint dated 17.10.2014 to the Police Commissioner as well as Katargam Police Station which was numbered as C.A. No.375 of 2014.

2.2. According to the petitioner, despite the above-referred clear written complaint filed by the petitioner disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence of forgery and cheating, police authorities did not register offence as an FIR and rejected the complaint of the petitioner by holding that nothing to be done as a Civil Suit is going on. Even no details of investigation was provided to the petitioner and the petitioner obtained the details of investigation under RTI where she came to know that the forged document created by the accused persons has not been recovered by the police. That in a case of forgery, non-recovery of the disputed document cannot be tolerated and in absence of recovery of such forged document, no investigation can be completed by saying that the dispute is of civil nature because a suit is pending.

2.3. As per the case of the petitioner, statement of one of the accused namely Mheshbhai Chhaganbhai was recorded by the police on 15.03.2015 wherein he has specifically stated that he will produce the copy of disputed document, but thereafter, neither he produced such document nor the police has demanded such document from Maheshbhai. Even in the Rojkam of the investigation, the police has noted that the disputed documents were demanded from Maheshbhai on 21.03.2015, who had told to the police that he will produce the same after getting it from his advocate, but police has not given the statement of Maheshbhai dated 21.03.2015 to the petitioner.

2.4. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency by letter dated 04.04.2015 demanded the relevant documents of Revenue Entry No.8219 from Mamlatdar, Choryasi, Surat and after completion of such formality of writing letter, police has not taken pain to obtain such record which clearly appears from the final report.

2.5. According to the petitioner, the investigating officer has recorded in his report dated 25.10.2015 that the petitioner has executed another document dated 18.03.2009 on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- to waive her right from the lands of her father. The