The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Magistrate to apply its mind to the allegations made in the complaint before directing the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 20/06/2014 passed by the CJM, Gwalior in unregistered Criminal Case No......./2014 by which the CJM Gwalior had directed the police authorities to register the FIR in case the police comes to a conclusion that the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 20/06/2014 the police has also registered the FIR on 16/11/2017 in Crime No. 775/2017 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that respondent No.2 is the son of applicant No.1 Smt. Kamla Yadav, whereas the applicant No.2 is the real brother of the respondent No.2 and son of the applicant No.1. A complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 against the applicants for offence under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of IPC alleging in nutshell that the father of the applicant No.2 & respondent No.2 and husband of the applicant No.1, namely, late Shri Ramesh Yadav was admitted in the hospital at Delhi and on the said date a forged ''Will'' was prepared by the applicants No.1 & 2 contrary to the interest of the respondent No.2 and the applicants No.3 & 4 knowing-fully well that the said ''Will'' of the father of the respondent No.2 is a forged document, signed the same as witnesses and accordingly, the complaint was filed. By order dated 20/06/2014 the JMFC, Gwalior has passed the following direction under Section 156(3) of CrPC and observed as under:-

lafgrk dh /kkjk&156¼3½ ds v/khu iqfyl vkj{kh dsUnz cgksMkiqj ds Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk iszf"kr fd;k tk, fd og ifjokfnr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k dj laKs; vijk/k izdV gksus dh voLFkk esa vfHk;ksx&i= vFkok vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa izfrosnu U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA lafgrk dh /kkjk&156¼3½ ds v/khu iqfyl vkj{kh dsUnz cgksMkiqj ds Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk iszf"kr fd;k tk, fd og ifjokfnr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k dj laKs; vijk/k izdV gksus dh voLFkk esa vfHk;ksx&i= vFkok vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa izfrosnu U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA

3. Challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that it is well-established principle of law that the order under Section 156(3) of CrPC cannot be passed mechanically. The Magistrate has to prima facie get himself satisfied that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence. However in the present case, the Magistrate did not apply its mind, on the contrary, left its discretion to the discretion of the police to lodge the FIR, if the police comes to a conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that such an order passed by the Magistrate is contrary to the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Priyanka Shrivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC (Suppl) 1801 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sugni Devi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2016(2) Cr.L.R.(MP) 327. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that during pendency of this application, the police in compliance of the order passed by JMFC, has also registered the FIR and from the FIR, it is apparent that before lodging the FIR no preliminary enquiry was conducted and the FIR has been lodged merely in compliance of order of the Magistrate, therefore, it is clear that even the order of the Magistrate was not complied with by the police and without coming to a conclusion that whether the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence or not, the police has registered the FIR. It is further submitted that the dispute is of civil nature and the respondent No. 2 has already filed a civi