Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19417 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 306 of 2025 Petitioner :- Geeta Kinnar Chela Mahtab Hazi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Singh,Shiv Chand Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "a) issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned revisional order dated 8.11.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 17, Meerut in Criminal Revision no. 669 of 2023 (Geeta Kinnar vs. State of U.P. and others) Police Station- Bahasuma, District- Meerut and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Misc. Application no. 1044 of 2023 (Geeta Kinnar vs. Nazim @ Thathera and others) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station Bahasuma, District Meerut. b) issue an order or direction to remand back the matter before learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut to decide the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station - Bahasuma, District- Meerut consider the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 29.05.2023 against respondent nos. 2 to 8 for the offence committed by them under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 195, 452, 386, 329, 120B IPC which was registered as Misc. Application no. 1044 of 2023. It is stated that by impugned order dated 24.08.2023, learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut has treated the said application as complaint. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.08.2023, petitioner filed a revision before learned District and Session Judge, Meerut which was registered as Criminal Revision no. 669 of 2023 but learned District and Session Judge, Meerut rejected the said revision of petitioner vide order dated 08.11.2024 which has been challenged through the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the ground that at the time of passing order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, learned court below have not applied their judicial mind and have not considered the material evidence on record hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by this Court and a direction be issued to remand back the matter to the learned Magistrate for deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. 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 passed the orders and as such, there is no illegality in the same. 6. During the course of argument, a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for petitioner that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner from the orders impugned but learned counsel for petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the same. 7. 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 then the only order can be passed is 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. 8. The 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. 9. Moreover, 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. None of the grounds raised through the instant petition are sustainable so as to attract interference of this Court and as such this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and impropriety in the orders of the court concerned or the revisional court. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad