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 t