HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2750 of 2023 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite service of notice none is present on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist Chaman Lal for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No. 42324 of 2022 (Chaman Lal Vs. Shyamlal and another), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was owner/bhumidhar of arazi No. 232 having area 0.0798 hectare situated at village Sarsa, Pargana Soraon, District Prayagraj. He was in need of money and was interested to sell out the said land to meet out his need. He contacted the opposite party no. 2 for Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jai Vardhan Tripathi, Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, Shailesh Upadhyay, Tushar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chaman Lal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) purchase of said land and he became ready to purchase the said land in a sale consideration of Rs. 5 lacs but he wanted to pay the entire sale consideration in cash but revisionist asked him that no amount above Rs. 20,000/- can be received in cash. The opposite party no. 2 purchased stamp papers on 04.03.2020 and pressurized the revisionist to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, they visited the office of Sub Registrar, who asked them that no amount above Rs.20,000/- can be paid in sale consideration of immovable property. The opposite party no. 2 asked the revisionist to get the sale deed executed by mentioning that he has received Rs.20,000/- and the opposite party no. 2 will pay Rs. 4,80,000/- after execution of sale deed. The revisionist executed the sale deed on 05.03.2020 in favour of opposite party. 4. It is further submitted that after execution of sale deed, the revisionist visited the house of opposite party nos. 2 and demanded the remaining amount but he refused to make any payment. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 started misbehaving the revisionist and they beaten the informant and also threatened for dire consequences. 5. It is next submitted that after the incident, the revisionist visited the local police for registration of the F.I.R. but no first information report was registered. Thereafter, he sent an application by registered post to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj and when no first information report was registered, he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of the first information report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad but the said application has been CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 2 dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 24.03.2020 stating that it is a case of civil nature. 6. It is also submitted that it is not a matter of civil nature but it is a criminal nature. The opposite party no. 2 has committed fraud with him. He was having intention to cheat the revisionist from very beginning and cognizance offence is made out against him but the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application by the impugned order. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration that cognizable offence is made out against the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in an arbitrary manner, and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that it is admitted by the revisionist that he was the owner of of the land in question which shows that he sold the said land by registered sale deed. The sole contention of the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 did not pay any amount after execution of the sale deed. It is a case of purely civil nature but the revisionist is trying to convert it into criminal nature. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed. CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 3 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra) "Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application under section 156(3)Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 4 and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"? 10. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. has answered the question as under:- "The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint." 11. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima- facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 5 In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra). 12. In the present case, the revisionist was owner of the land in question. He asked the opposite party no. 2 to purchase the said land and the said land was sold by revisionist to opposite party no. 2 on sale consideration of Rs. 5 lacs. It is the case of the revisionist that the opposite party no. 2 has already paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and promised that he will pay the remaining amount after execution of sale deed but after execution of the sale deed, the opposite party no. 2 did not pay any amount to the revisionist. When the revisionist visited the house of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, he was beaten by them and threatened for dire consequences. The revisionist filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad seeking a direction for registration of case against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 but the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.02.2023. The learned Magistrate while dismissing the said application has observed that it is a matter of pure civil nature and the revisionist is trying to convert the same into criminal case. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order and the application under Section CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 6 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has rightly been dismissed by the learned Magistrate after considering the entire material available on record, as such, no case is made out for interference. 13. In view of the above, the present revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. October 16, 2025 Rmk. CRLR No. 2750 of 2023 7 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad