JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.I and Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned State Law Officer for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Code has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Revision No.55 of 2020 (Kailash Nath Dwivedi v State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 25.09.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, in Misc. Case No.406 of 2020 (Kailash Nath Dwivedi v Rudra Narayan Dwivedi and others) under Section 156(3) of the Code, Police Station Tindwari, District Banda.

3. The facts of the case, as disclosed from the pleadings, are that an application dated 04.08.2020, filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of the Code (registered as Misc. Case No.406 of 2020) before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, has been treated as a complaint and in terms of an order dated 25.09.2020, it has been directed to be registered as a complaint case fixing a date for recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code.

4. A revision against the aforesaid order was preferred by the applicant being Criminal Revision No.55 of 2020 (Kailash Nath Dwivedi v State of U.P. and others) primarily seeking to contend that the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code discloses a cognizable offence and, accordingly, the court was required to direct the police to investigate and submit a report under Section 173(2) of the Code.

5. The revisional court, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position in this regard, has held that it is open for the Magistrate while exercising discretionary power under Section 156(3) of the Code to issue directions to register the case under Section 154 of the Code and conduct investigation or to take cognizance of the matter by treating it as a complaint and proceed for inquiry as per procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.

6. Taking notice of the fact that the civil and criminal litigation is pending between the parties and that the applicant had full knowledge of the facts of the incident regarding which, he could lead evidence, the revisional court has held that there is no error in the view taken by the learned Magistrate that no case was made out for investigation by the police and in view thereof, has rejected the revision.

7. The principal ground sought to be raised by learned counsel for the applicant to assail the orders passed by the courts below is that the case of the applicant rests on the allegation of manipulation of documents and forgery which can be proved only after investigation by the police and submission of a report. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to draw attention of the Court to certain documentary evidence appended as annexures alongwith the affidavit to support his contention with regard to manipulation of documents.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State-opposite party have submitted that upon receiving the complaint, the Magistrate while exercising its discretionary power, may direct the police to register a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code and conduct investigation or where the facts of the case are such, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the matter by treating it as a complaint and proceed for the inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. It is contended that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which curtails or puts any embargo on the power of the Magistrate to make an inquiry in dealing with the application under Section 156(3) of the Code in order to satisfy itself about the veracity of the allegations with regard to commission of a cognizable offence. It is also pointed out that looking into the facts of the case and in particular, the civil and criminal litigation pending between the parties and also that the