JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. - This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the revisional court whereby order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.has been set aside.

2. The present lis was initiated by respondent No.1-complainant by filing a complaint against the petitioners with a prayer under Section 156(3) seeking directions to the police authorities to register FIR as per the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar Vs. State of UP and others 2014 (2) SCC 1. The learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C vide order dated 24.02.2022. The operative part thereof reads as under:-

'7. It is a well settled law that whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass order under Section 156 Cr.P.C., he should ensure that before coming to the court, the complaint did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him/her disclosing the commission of cognizance offence by the persons arrayed as accused in the complainant. It is also equally well settled law that power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously on proper ground and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases, where the allegations are not very serious and complainant herself in possession of evidence to prove her allegations, there should be no need to pass order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. This discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that nature of allegation is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the court and interest of justice warrants that police should step in to assist help to assist the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors (2015) 6 SCC 287 has enjoined that the Ld. Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. It has been further held that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. while filing of petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Both the aspects should be clearly Spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed.

8. Keeping in view of above yardstick if we evaluate the present application supported by the documents produced by the applicant, this court is of the considered view that exercise of this extra ordinary power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.is not made out.

9. Much emphasis has been laid by the Ld. counsel for the applicant on the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Lalita Kumar Vs. Govt of UP & Ors. 2013(4) RCR(Crl.) 979, asserting that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above said case that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. However, it is relevant to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.106 of said judgment has carved out exception and laid down that there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change of genesis and novelty of crime with passage of time. Therefore, in appropriate cases, the police may conduct preliminary inquiry. As such, it can not be said, that in all the cases registration of FIR is compulsory, in case information discloses commission of cognizable offence.

10. Further more, it may be noted that only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the opinion that nature of allegations are such that complainant himself/herself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence befor