Hon’ble Mushaffey Ahmad, J.—These two criminal revisions have been preferred against the orders passed by the Magistrates on the applications moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Since a common question is involved in both the revisions, they are taken up together.

2. In the first case, the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 3.11.2013 treated the application of the applicant as complaint, where the complainant had alleged against Opp. Party offences of criminal house trespass, mishandling and committing rape on her under threat. In the second case, complainant Radhika Devi alleged against the Opp. Party the offences of cheating and forging of documents in respect of agricultural land, but The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 20.9.2013 rejected the application.

3. Learned A.G.A. makes preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision against these orders on the strength of this Court’s Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB).

Learned counsel for the revisionists, on the other hand, press for admission of and full fledged hearing on the revisions.

Thus, we are called upon