The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the magistrate to apply judicial mind and exercise discretion guided by the interest of justice when deciding whether to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri S.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 27.6.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in Misc. Application No. 4911/09 of 2020, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the applicant, who is revisionist, before this Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of present revision are that the applicant Samshad Ahmad moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar on 3.1.2020, stating therein that her father late Hazi Anwarul Haq had purchased two properties situated at Kasba Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar on 9.7.1982 and 13.9.1993, jointly with Ansar Khan, the opposite party and both of them occupied their respective shares in said properties. On 11.7.2007, Anwarul Haq, the father of the applicant died. The applicant became owner in possession of the share of his father in the said prosperties together with brothers namely Subhan Ali and others. Applicant and his brothers executed two separate sale deeds in the name of Salma Beg, wife of Azhar Beg and Azhar Beg, son of Asgar Beg with regard to their respective share in said property inherited from their father. The purchaser came into possession of said property after sale deed dated 19.9.2019. The applicant received a summon from trial court, from which he came to know that some civil suit has been filed by Ansar Khan against the applicant. The applicant visited the place of Ansar Khan on 24.9.2019, at 6:00 PM where he was present alongwith his two companions. The applicant tried to gather information regarding suit whereupon Ansar Khan became enraged and he abused them and showed him a photocopy of a forged Will deed and stated that he had got a forged Will deed prepared in the name of his father and on the strength of that, he would forcefully took possession of the property. The photocopy of Will deed dated 20.10.2005, is apparently false, forged and fictitious, which has been prepared by the opposite party Ansar Khan with the help of his unknown accomplishes, in which signature of Hazi Anwarul Haq and witness Salimuddin are completely forged. The Will has been prepared by opposite party only with intent to grab the said property. The applicant has filed a report of private handwriting and finger print expert, which reveals that admitted signature of the executant is not appended thereon. The Notary Public Jamiruddin, who is shown to have notarized the disputed Will has died around 6 years ago, the date of alleged Will deed. The said Will deed is a result of fraud committed by opposite party with assistance of his companions. There is no blood relation between late father of the applicant and opposite party. The applicant prayed for issuing direction to SHO concerned to register a case and investigate the same in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

4. Learned ACJM, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar, vide order dated 14.10.2020, directed the registration of the application as a complaint case in the light of pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P., 2007 ACC 739 (DB) and fixed the case for recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision before the court of Session, which was decided by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar on 19.1.2021 and impugned order dated 14.10.2020 was set aside and the lower court was directed to decide the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. within one month in the light of lega