The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to allow or refuse an application and the requirement for judicial reasoning in exercising this discretion, as well as the need to consider specific facts and circumstances of each case before deciding on investigation or treating the application as a complaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in criminal case no. 114 of 2022, whereby the application filed by appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been registered as a complaint case.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that impugned order is against the facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. In his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the appellant has made allegations that the private respondents have abused the appellant by using caste indicative words and they have assaulted him and that in the alleged incident, the appellant has sustained as many as 11 injuries and thus a cognizable offence was made out but the court below did not make direction for investigation by police and instead registered the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the medical examination of appellant was conducted after four days of the incident on the direction of District Magistrate, Bhadohi. It was submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary that court below must have passed an order for investigation of the matter by police and thus the court below committed error by registering the said case application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

5. Learned counsel for private respondents have opposed the appeal and argued that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant making false and baseless allegations. It was pointed out that regarding the said application, police have submitted report before the court, wherein, it was mentioned that the allegations made in the application are false and no incident of assaulting the appellant has taken place and that the application was moved by the appellant to exert undue pressure upon respondents regarding land dispute. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondents also placed reliance upon the case of Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. and others (Application U/s 482 No. 14443 of 2022), decided on 17.10.2022.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is well settled. In case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P., 2007 (59) ACC 739, after considering 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 of this court has held 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. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. It was also held that even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint. Similarly, in case of Naresh Kumar Balmiki (Supra), it w