A Magistrate has the discretion to either register a case under Section 156(3) or treat it as a complaint; there is no obligation to register every application as an F.I.R.

JUDGMENT :

CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Firdos Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 425 of 2023, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Parveen Bano Vs. Ajeej and others) whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant Parveen Bano for registration of the F.I.R. but the said application was treated as complaint case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Basti vide order dated 30.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are family members of the revisionist. On 17.09.2023 at about 9.45 A.M. when the revisionist was cleaning the back side of the house, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 came there and due to old enmity they started abusing her. On being stopped by her, they started beating her by kicks and fists and when her daughter came to rescue her, they took her daughter with intention to commit illegal act and her clothes were torn. Thereafter they entered into house of the revisionist and started breaking articles and Rs.1500/- kept in Almirah were also taken away. An application was given to the police for registration of the F.I.R. and a copy of the same was also sent to the S.P. Basti but no report was registered by the police. Thereafter an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti but the learned Magistrate instead of passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case, has registered the application as complaint case. It is further submitted that the revisionist Parveen Bano and her daughter Nagma were medically examined. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and in view of the settled principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the present application has been filed due to old family dispute about land partition. There is old rivalry between the parties and compromise has been entered many times and proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the revisionist. A case No. 163 of 2019 (Karam Husain and others Vs. Ram Paltan and others) is also pending. The medical papers filed by the revisionist regarding injuries of Nagma are forged and fabricated. In fact, they have not received any injury due to the said incident. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate is not bound to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. and its investigation by police on each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the said application could be registered as complaint case.

6. The main questio