Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25458 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 469 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajnish Singh @ Pinku And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhimbahadur Singh,Jay Prakash Singh,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present criminal revision under Section 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (397/401 Cr.P.C.), the revisionist has assailed the validity of order dated25.03.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Case No. 557 of 2023 (Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Rajnish Singh alias Pinkoo and others) by which the said court has directed the Station House Officer, Ahirauli, Ambedkar Nagar to register an FIR and investigate the matter. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist is a Village Pradhan having worked from 2015- 2020 as Pradhan of Village Jaitpur Khas, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar. He has stated that opposite party no. 2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., stating therein that the period during which the revisionist was discharging his duties as Pradhan, funds were fraudulently withdrawn under the MGNREGA Scheme and persons, who did not conduct any work, shown to have worked and the money payable to them, was misappropriated by the revisionist. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected on 06.02.2024 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who duly considered considered the inquiry report submitted by the police and found that the allegations pertain to the Job Card No. 244 prepared by Banarasi alias Sallu son of Agaradi. He did not find any merit in the allegation levelled in the application and rejected the same. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2024, opposite party no. 2 preferred a revision. The said revision was allowed by means of order dated 30.07.2024 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar, duly considered the facts of the case and found that a cognizable offence has been disclosed in the complaint and he found that two Job Cards has fraudulently been prepared particularly a single individuals and the same persons has entered his name at two places. When the said fact was found out, he has closed one of his accounts in which the money from MGNREGA Scheme was deposited. He has further found that on 18.12.2018 till 14.07.2021 both the Job Cards no. 244 and 398 were operational in which the amount of the MGNREGA Scheme was simultaneously deposited and both the Job Cards pertain to the same person. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, he found that a cognizable offence is made out and remanded the matter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing him to pass a fresh order after hearing all the parties. It is further noticed that the revisionist had put in appearance in the revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and participated in the said proceedings, which is evident from the impugned order dated 25.03.2025. 6. It is in the remand proceedings that a fresh order has been passed on 25.03.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has duly considered the facts and considered the allegations levelled therein and also found that two Job Cards were made in the name of same person and fraudulently the money was deposited in two accounts opened in the name of same person and accordingly has directed the police to register an FIR. 7. Learned counsel for revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the ground that despite the order dated 30.07.2024 he was given given an opportunity of hearing and consequently the order dated 25.02.0225 is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. He has further submitted that on merits, according to the police report, no case is made out against the revisionist and consequently on this ground also order dated 25.03.2025 deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revision and submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the entire material available on record, which is in the nature of the complaint made by opposite party no. 2. He submits that once an opportunity had been given by the revisional court to the revisionist to participate in the proceedings, he has not put in appearance or filed Vakalatnama on his behalf nor made any effort to participate in the proceedings and consequently no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 9. This Court has heard rival contention of learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. Needless to reiterate the facts as already discussed above. The issue which has arisen before this Court is as to whether learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed any illegality in not issuing notices to the revisionist or hearing him before passing the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and directing him for registration of the FIR. 11. It is noticed that as per provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. there is no provision for prospective accused to be heard in the said proceedings. While exercising powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has duly considered the contents of the complaint and in case police report has been called for, he can consider the material before him and pass an order in case he is satisfied that cognizable offence is disclosed and direct the police to register an FIR. 12. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 252 has held as under:- “13. It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words “may take cognizance” which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with “must take cognizance”. The word “may” gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself. 17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption : “Information to the Police and their powers to investigate”; while Section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading: “Of complaints to Magistrates”. The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage, the second at the post- cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section an investigation “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. Thus the object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him.” 13. In the present case, it seems that the revisional court had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear the revisionist before passing any order. Without going into validity of such a direction, it is noticed that the revisionist did not join the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and now at this stage is alleging that he was not heard by him before passing the impugned order. It is noticed that before the revisional court, the revisionist had participated in the said proceedings and was fully aware of the order dated 30.07.2024. Even in the said order, the contentions of the revisionist are duly considered and appearance of the counsel on behalf of the revisionist is duly noticed. Accordingly this Court finds that the revisionist is fully aware of the order of the revisional order dated 30.07.2024 and on the direction of the revisional court, the revisionist ought to have put in appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and participated in the proceedings. The order cannot be set aside merely on account of the fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not issue notice to the revisionist. The direction of the revisional court was limited only to give an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and considering the fact that the revisionist was fully in knowledge of the said order and that he participated in the revisional proceedings, he ought to have appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and participated in the proceedings but deliberately continued to let the proceedings proceed without his participation and accordingly after the impugned order has been passed, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the order of the revisional court dated 30.07.2024 stating that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. It is not the case of the revisionist that he was not aware of the remand proceedings or the fact that he was denied opportunity to participate in the same. 14. Accordingly, firstly in absence of any statutory provision permitting the revisionist to participate in the proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and secondly when an order has been already passed by the revisional court, this Court does not find any reason for the revisionist not to put in appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the participate in the said proceedings. With regard to the merits of the case this Court finds that revisional court has duly considered the entire conspectus of facts in detail and allowed the revision only after considering that cognizable offence is clearly made out and the fraudulent manner in which two Job Cards was presented and operated simultaneously. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has duly considered and adopted the findings of the revisional court and accordingly it cannot be said that from the reading of the said complaint of the facts no offence is made out. 15. Accordingly, for the reasons as aforesaid, this Court does not inclined to interfere in the matter. The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench