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