Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A for the State, An application was moved by the applicant under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat alleging that on 26.4.2009 while the applicant alongwith his family members was harvesting his crop, the 28 accused persons armed with weapons came to the applicant’s field and started beating the applicant and after gagging the applicant’s mother broke open the lock of the applicant’s house and took away the harvested crops stored in the applicant’s house alongwith Rs. 50, 000/- cash and jewellery of the applicant’s mother. It was alleged that the police had refused to register the F.I.R. It was prayed that direction be issued by the magistrate to register the F.I.R. and investigate the case. The Court below by the impugned order dated 27.7.2009 directed that the application under Section 156 (3) be registered in the Court as a criminal complaint and fixed on 13.8.2004 for recording statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C.

2. Instead of giving evidence as required by the Court below the applicant preferred the instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court against the impugned order, submitting that the Court below was not right in directing the procedure of a complaint case to be adopted and that he should have directed the police to register and investigate the case.

3. The question as to where the magistrate is approached by a complaint with an application praying for a direction to the police under Section 156 (3) to register and investigate an alleged cognizable offence, when should he grant the relief of registration of a case and its investigation by the police under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. and when should he treat this application as a complaint and follow the procedure of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. was considered by this Court in a case reported in 2002 (44) ACC 670, Gulab Chabnd Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court has held as under:

“ 20. Reverting back to the present case, Section 155, Cr.P.C. deals with non-cognizable offences and Section 156 deals with cognizable offences. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Jain v. State of M.P., it has been laid down that a Magistrate considering an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. may without taking cognizance direct the police to register and investigate the case, or he may take cognizance and proceed under Chapter XV, Cr.P.C. However this discretion of the Magistrate obviously cannot be unguided or arbitrary. No decision was cited before me to throw any light upon the considerations which should weight with the Magistrate to guide his discretion.”

21. In these circumstances, the question arises that when a Magistrate is approached by a complainant with an application praying for a direction to the police under Section 156 (3) to register and investigate an alleged cognizable offence, when should he—

(A) grant the relief of registration of a case and its investigation by the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,

(B) treat the application as a complaint and follow the procedure of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

22. The scheme of Cr.P.C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised where some”investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom State has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example.

(1) where the full details of the accused are known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or

(2) where recovery of abducted person of stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or

(3) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused evid