Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35807 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2398 of 2025 Petitioner :- Aneeta Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Shukla,Sabha Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (Crime against Women), Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Misc. Case No.1187 of 2023 (Aneeta Yadav and Ravikant Yadav and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No.212 of 2023 ((Aneeta Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the concerned court for seeking direction in favour of police authority concerned to register FIR but without considering the facts mentioned in the said application as well as without applying its judicial mind, learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (Crime against Women), Bhadohi, Gyanpur vide its order dated 11.10.2023, treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as complaint case which was preferred by petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.10.2023, petitioner preferred criminal revision which was also dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 07.02.2024 which impugned the present petition. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that in a very casual and mechanical manner, instead of issuing an order to the police concerned to register an FIR, learned court concerned treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as complaint case and in the same manner, learned revisional court has also dismissed the revision preferred at the behest of petitioner challenging the order dated 11.10.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner further argued that once it is apparent that offence committed by the private respondent, is cognizable one, in such situation, order for registering the FIR has to be passed by the court concerned and as such, both the impugned orders are sustainable in the eye of law and the same may be quashed by directing the court concerned to pass order afresh over the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as complaint case moved by petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and submitted that after considering the material on record, learned court concerned and learned revisional court passed the orders and as such, there is no illegality in the same. 5. After having the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the concerned court after considering the material available on record, passed the order impugned. The Magistrate is not bound in each and every case to pass an order to register a case and investigate if cognizable offence is made out. The Magistrate is fully competent to use its judicial direction in the matter. This is wrong notion that if an application has been moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the only order can be passed for registration in the matter. The magistrate has got direction under Section 190 Cr.P.C. to take the cognizance directly or to pass an order that the police to investigate and then take cognizance on submissions of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is also expected to act under some guidelines and it should not be left at the arbitrary discretion of the Magistrate to pass an order or not to pass an order to register the case and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In Gulab Chandra Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. [2002 (44) SCC 670], a Coordinate Bench of this Court laid down the guidelines for the guidance of Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the guidelines cannot be said against any provision of law or check on the judicial direction of the Magistrate. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439 also observed that under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Magistrate was not bound to direct investigation by police and such direction could be given only on application of mind. It was also observed that each case must be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved. The directions for investigation could not be granted even if all allegations made in the complaint constituted a cognizable offence and in cases where the complainant could prove the facts alleged in the complaint without assistance of police, then Magistrate might proceed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 7. In the instant case, the facts were within the petitioner's knowledge, which could be adduced during the inquiry conducted by the court concerned under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Hence, Investigation was not required and also it is not the special case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under under Article 227 of the Constitution as there is no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the concerned court or the revisional court. The court concerned passed an order in the circumstances of the case that it may be registered as a complaint case and proceed to record the statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. There appears no illegality and impropriety in the orders of the court concerned or the revisional court. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad