HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5829 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to set- aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Kaushambi passed in Misc. Application No. 277 of 2023 (Rajkumar Vs. Saurabh and another), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kaushambi, District- Kaushambi. 3. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the allegations made in the application clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was duty bound to direct investigation by the police, but he has illegally declined to exercise such jurisdiction. It is argued that the impugned order suffers from manifest error of law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not bona fide. The learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, has rightly held that the application appears to be filed only to create pressure on the opposite parties. The rejection order thus calls for no interference. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order along with the material placed on record. 6. It is well settled that while exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not to act mechanically. The Magistrate has the discretion to either direct registration of a case and investigation by the police, or to treat the application as a complaint and proceed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The exercise of such Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dharmendra Singh, Lalit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gore Lal, Manish Dev Rajkumar .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) discretion must be judicial and based on the facts of each case. 7. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 8. On overall consideration, I do not find any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below so as to warrant interference in the present appeal. The reasons assigned are just, proper, and in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 5829 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad