1. This petition filed under Article 482 CrPC assails the order dated 9.10.2007 and subsequent FIR based on it.

2. The singular contention raised by Shri Prashant Sharma is that the Court below has mechanically passed the order dated 9.10.2007. The necessary ingredients for invoking said power were not taken into account and in routine manner police authorities were directed to register the matter and start investigation. He relied on judgment of this Court and recent judgment of Supreme Court in (Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P.).

3. Shri R. S. Bansal, Advocate for the complainant submits that Court below has given a finding in the impugned order that averment of complainant were examined. This shows that there was proper application of mind. He also relied on 2008(2) SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others). On the strength of this judgment, it is urged that power of Magistrate under sections 200, 156(3) CrPC are very wide. The High Court should not interfere in a routine manner against orders passed by the Magistrate.

4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court in 2013 (2) MPHT 521 (Ramyash Tiwari v. State of M.P.) opined as under :-

“9. For the guidance of all the Subordinate Judicial Magistrate in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to circulate the guidelines as mentioned below for dealing with the cases under section 156(3), CrPC, the directions are as follows : -

(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the Complainant. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police, when approached by the complainant under section 154(3) of the Code.

(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him. Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing final orders.

(iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a complaint under section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under section 202 of the Code.

(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a complaint under section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of ev