The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. By means of the present application, the applicant has impeached the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pratapgarh (in short "Revisional Court") in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2016 ( Prem Narayan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others ) and also the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Additional C.J.M., Court No.13, Pratapgarh (in short "Magistrate") in Misc. Case No. 335 of 2015 (Prem Narayan vs. Awadhesh Kumar).

2. By the impugned order dated 29.01.2016, the trial Court rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.01.2016 reads as under:-

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2016, the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2016 ( Prem Narayan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others ) and the Revisional Court dismissed the said revision vide order dated 28.07.2023 with following observations:-

"The grounds shown in the revision also established that there involves a controversy of his civil nature. The findings arrived by the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law and the learned Magistrate has relied upon the case laws passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts.

8.- There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Order

Crl Revision N0-40 of 2016 preferred by the revisionist is accordingly dismissed. Record of the Learned Trial Court be returned to Trial Court. And record of this revision be consigned in accordance with law."

4. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as also the averments made in the application under consideration, the order(s) aforesaid have been impeached by the applicant on the ground that from a bare reading of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it appears that cognizable offence is made out and as such the order dated 29.01.2016 rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and also the order dated 28.07.2023 affirming the order dated 29.01.2016 are liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned AGA stated that a bare reading of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. would show that subject matter of the same relates to a "Will", which, according to the applicant, is forged and the genuineness of the "Will" can be ascertained by the Court of first instance having competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence adduced before it and accordingly no interference of this Court in the present application is required. Prayer is to dismiss the application.

6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Law dealing with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has already been settled in various pronouncements including the following judgments:-

8. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. , reported in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1088 ; wherein this Court answered the question referred on account of difference of opinion on the issue of exercise of power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., are as under:-

"“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 F.I.R. 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 case