JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Respondents.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed principally for the following prayers:

“(i) To set aside the judgment order dated 19.10.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 20, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2019 (Prem Das vs. State of U.P. and Others) as well as order dated 31.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 6, Agra in Misc. Case No. 24928 of 2019 (Prem Das vs. Sandeep Agrawal) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station-Hariparvat, District Agra. (Annexure Nos. 4 and 2 of this Petition).

(ii) To direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to register the first information report against the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and investigate the matter and submit the police report before the court concern in accordance with law.”

3. The records of the case indicate that upon an application dated 4.2.2019 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [the Code] the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6 Agra by means of an order dated 31.5.2019 has treated the same as a complaint and directed it to be registered as complaint case.

4. Learned Magistrate while passing the aforesaid order has noticed that the entire facts of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant and the necessary material evidence in regard to the same can be placed before the court by the complainant and in view thereof, there was no reason to direct investigation of the case by the police.

5. Aggrieved, against the aforesaid order the applicant preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 408/2019 which has also been rejected by order dated 19.10.2020, after recording similar reasons. Both the courts below have relied upon the legal proposition that the Magistrate is not bound to allow the application under section 156(3) of the Code and direct an investigation; in appropriate cases the Magistrate has a discretion to treat the application under section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the factual aspects of the case, as stated in the complaint, in order to assail the orders passed by the courts below.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court by contending that a bare reading of the complaint would disclose that the necessary facts are within the knowledge of the applicant and accordingly, the view taken by the courts below that the case does not require any investigation by the police cannot be said to suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference.

8. The scope and parameters for exercise of discretionary powers by a Magistrate in dealing with a complaint on an application under section 156(3) of the Code, are fairly well settled.

9. The Magistrate upon receiving a complaint or an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, with regard to facts disclosing commission of an offence “may take cognizance” which in the context of Section 190 of the Code, cannot be read as “must take cognizance.” The use of the expression “may” under Section 190 of the Code gives a discretion to the Magistrate to either take cognizance or to forward the complaint to the police and order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.

10. The question as to whether it is mandatory for the Magistrate to order registration of a criminal case and direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation, is no longer res integra and it has been consistently held that where a Magistrate receives an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, he is not bound to take immediate cognizance even if the alleged facts disclose commission of an offence.

11. In the case of Gopal Das Sindhi and