JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED,J.

1. Heard Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Application No.3597 of 2020 (Atul Pandey @ Param Pragyan Pandey versus Janardan Pandey) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station-Oonjh, District-Bhadohi after summoning the record from the trial court and remand the case before the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of the FIR against the opposite party no.2 and investigation of the case.

3. The facts of the case are that the revisionist lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 in respect of a dispute that arose on 8.1.2020 as case crime no.2/2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. It is alleged that in order to create a false version of a cross case against the revisionist, opposite party no.2 Janardan Pandey fraudulently got himself referred for medical examination by preparing a forged referral letter dated 12.1.2020, on the basis of which the concerned CMO wrote a letter dated 25.1.2020 to the Chief Medical Superintendent of District Hospital, Prayagraj for conducting the CT Scan of Janardan Pandey. The revisionist informed about this act of forgery by the revisionist to the concerned CMO through a letter dated 4.2.2020, taking note of which the concerned CMO requested CMS, Tej Bahadur Saprtu Hospital, Prayagraj for cancellation of CT Scan report through a letter No.Medical/CT Scan/Nirastikaran/2019-20 dated 25.1.2020 for being obtained on furnishing false referral certificate and a copy of the said letter was directed to be sent to the concerned SP, SHO and the revisionist for the necessary action. But even after an application was sent before the SP Bhadohi, no action has been taken, therefore the revisionist has moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of the FIR and the investigation of the case for the offence of forgery committed by the opposite party no.2. The Judicial Magistrate II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur vide order dated 16.10.2020 converted the said application under Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint case and fixed the date on 2.1.2021 for statement of the revisionist under Section 200 CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence and as such the Magistrate must have directed the registration of the first information report and investigation by police, instead of treating the application as a complaint case. He further submits that the order under challenge has been passed mechanically and in a routine manner, which does not manifest the application of judicious mind to the facts of the case and law applicable therein. He has placed reliance on the cases of 'Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of India and others', reported in 2014(2) SCC 1; 'Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others', Criminal Revision No.1768 of 2018, decided on 29.05.2018; 'Shiv Mangal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others', Criminal Revision No.715 of 2019, decided on 25.02.2019 and 'Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and another', passed in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.43271 of 2018, decided on 30.11.2018.

5. Learned AGA has submitted that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and make investigation without taking cognizance. But, he has also the jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed to inquire the matter by himself, registering the application as a complaint case. In such circumstance he has to follow the procedure prescribed for complaint case. He has submitted that the Magistrate while proceeding as a complaint case has still the power to direct for police investigation, in view of Section 202