The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the Magistrate to exercise discretion judiciously and apply his mind before ordering police investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri A. R. S. Chauhan, learned P.L. for the respondent No. 2/State. Heard.

2. This revision under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the order dated 28-5-2015 passed by IInd A.S.J, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No. 227/2013 whereby the order dated 18-4-2011 passed by the C.J.M., Chhatarpur has been set aside.

3. Brief facts are as follows :—

Non-applicant No. 1 preferred an application under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The learned C.J.M, Chhatarpur vide order dated 16-11-2010 dismissed the same stating that neither the petitioner has listed any witness nor it has been filed in the form of a complaint, therefore, the Court cannot issue direction to lodge the F.I.R to investigate the matter at the behest of the applicant. This order was under challenge before the 8th A.S.J. Fast Track Court, Chhattarpur in Criminal Revision No. 254/2010. The learned A.S.J. vide order dated 29-1-2011 discussing the legal points involved allowed the revision and setting aside the order dated 16-11-2010 directed the Court of C.J.M. to act in accordance with law on the application under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Learned C.J.M., Chhatarpur after reconsidering the petition and having heard the supplementary arguments decided the same on 18-4-2011 and held, that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment pronounced in Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 ordered that neither it can be directed to the police to register the crime and investigate the matter nor can it make the inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hence, the application was dismissed.

5. Again, revision was preferred against this order and the same was decided on 28-5-2015 by the IInd A.S.J. in Criminal Revision No. 227/2013 and allowed the revision. Setting aside the order dated 18-4-2011, directed the trial Court to act in accordance to law.

6. The matter basically relates to allegation of the petitioner having prepared forged “caste certificate” and filed the same before the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Chhatarpur and on the basis of forged documents, obtained a “caste certificate” on the basis of this certificate received scholarship for his sons. He also endorsed in his service record and filed application before the school. The complainant producing certified copy of all these documents requested to initiate action against the accused/applicant.

7. Heard the parties.

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has discussed the relevant provisions of Chapter (XII) and Chapter (XV) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and made the following observations :—

“25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuge to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under section 154(3) and section 36, Criminal Procedure Code before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3).

26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3), Criminal Procedure Code or other police officer referred to in section 36, Criminal Procedur