Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. It appears that the applicant Raj Kumari moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned with the allegations that she purchased a house from Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Vashundhara, Ghaziabad and obtained possession thereof on 9.8.2009. The accused Raju Singh Tomar fabricated a forged mukhatarnama and executed a sale deed transferring the applicant’s house in favour of one Shalini Tyagi. The learned Magistrate found that the dispute was of civil nature and contractual and as such no cognizable offence was made out. Accordingly the learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C.

4. The power of the Magistrate to direct for police investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is well settled. When any application disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is moved before the Magistrate, he has power to direct the police to investigate the matter. Before doing so, the Magistrate has to see whether or not the facts stated in the application disclose commission of any cognizable offence. If the facts disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the Magistrate may direct the police to investigate the matter. If the application does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, it is open to the Magistrate to dismiss the application. At the stage of considering an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is not required to make detailed examination of the merits of the case or to consider pros and cons of the allegations. In other words the Magistrate is not required to inquire into the truthfulness of the allegations either by holding an inquiry or otherwise. The allegations have to be taken as their face value while considering an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had specifically stated in her application that the Mukhtarnama, on which basis the sale deed was executed, was a forged document fabricated by the accused Raju Singh Tomar. In view of the fact that the Mukhtarnama was forged, the sale deed executed on the basis of Mukhatarnama was also forged. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Mukhtarnama as well as sale deed were false documents within the meaning of Section 464, I.P.C. and as such the accused has committed the offence of forgery as defined in Section 463, I.P.C. Learned Magistrate was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the dispute was of civil nature.

6. Section 463, I.P.C. defines forgery, which reads as follows :

463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits “forgery”.

7. Section 464, IPC defines false document, according to which a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record,—

? firstly, who dishonestly or fraudulently, (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record, (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was