Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 18.10.2013 passed by A.C.J.M.-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 2654 of 2013 under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar by which the application of revisionist under Section 156(3) has been registered as complaint. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it was not the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to have come to the conclusion that whether the matter should be investigated by the police or not. The Magistrate concerned has not exercised the jurisdiction properly.

2. In view of Father Thomas v. State of U.P., 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB), no revision or 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings or writ lies against the order whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is rejected. It has further been held that the only remedy for the revisionist is to file the complaint.

3. In the present case the Court has come to the conclusion that it is within the knowledge of the revisionist that who are the accused persons and the evidence is also within the knowledge of the applicant. The Court has further concluded that there is no fact involved in the application in which it is required that police should collect the evidence. Relying upon Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., (2007) 59 SCC 739 (All), the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been registered as complaint case.

4. In Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. (Supra), this Court has laid down certain guidelines relying on provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and in view of Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. (Supra), the Court has every power to treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint, if it comes to the conclusion that there is no necessity of police investigation. The present case relates to the sale and purchase of shares and it is alleged that the accused persons had mis-appropriated the amount of complainant which was given for purchase of shares. Admittedly, the complainant was having a Demat account. For making transaction form Demat Account, the account holder has to authorised the concerned service provider to transfer the particular shares and for this purpose the receipt book is also given to him. Certainly, all these evidences must be available to the complainant that what shares have been purchased by him and how many shares have been sold by him. Certainly, in such matter the police investigation is not required because the information is available to the account holder.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon Smt. Geeta v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11729 of 2012 in which a direction has been issued to the Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. In this case, the allegations were regarding loot of the valuable articles and burning of house as well as destruction of other goods. No such law has been laid down in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition that decisions of this Court in Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. (Supra) and Father Thomas v. State of U.P., is not applicable.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon Manju Devi v. State of U.P., 2011 (9) ADJ 112 (All), in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli had rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and this Court has held as under :

“It is a established law that at the time of considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has only to see whether cognisable offence is disclosed. The Magistrate is not empowered to critically analyze the material on record and to come to a finding that no case for investigation is made out. Learned Magistrate committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that petitioner’s case in the application and the medical evidence were contrad