JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Shamli in Misc. Case No. 252/11 of 2020 (Parvez Safi Vs. Rajendra Kumar & others) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli.

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the application filed by revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence but it has been rejected without considering relevant facts and law. Learned counsel submitted that the application was mainly rejected on the ground that the court at Kairana, District Shamli has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application, whereas the agreement between the parties was executed at Shamli and thus, the alleged transaction between the parties has taken place partly within the jurisdiction of the court of District Shamli and thus, the court below has jurisdiction to pass an order for investigation by police. Learned counsel submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police may required.

6. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a primafacie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application.

7. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra)

"Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"

8. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. has answered the question as under:-

"The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint."

9. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application