1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior (M.P.) in private complaint No. 0/12 by which application filed by the petitioner under section 156 (3) of Cr PC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under section 190 of Cr PC and along with the complaint, the petitioner has also filed an application under section 156 (3) of Cr PC for referring the complaint for investigation to the police. The learned trial Court has rejected the application and by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to produce the witnesses for recording their statements under section 200 and 202 of Cr. P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court was duty bound to allow the application under section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. as the complaint relates to cognizable offence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has cited a judgment of Hon. apex Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (III) MPWN 73=(2008) 2 SCC 409, in which it has been held in paras 26 and 27 which are quoted here in below:-

26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station has first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 156 (3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in section 36 Cr.PC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under section 156 (3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petition or section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 and 154 (3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under section 156 (3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under section 482 CrPC.

4. It has been further held that “although section 156 (3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under section 156 (3) Cr.PC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the police station concerned to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in section 156 (3) CrPC, we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.”

5. On perusal of the impugned order (Ann.A/1) and in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the fact that Police Station Kotwali has not taken action on the complaint made by the complainant and even on making complaint to the Superintendent of Police also that is why the complainant has come before the Court and considering these facts, the Court below has fixed the case for recording of evidence under sections 200 and 202 of Cr.PC on 16.11.2011 and evidence of witnesses have