JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.N. Misra, J.—This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant for quashing the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in criminal case No. 493 of 2006, by which the applicants have been summoned for trial for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur. 2. I have heard Shri Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the file. 3. The main point argued in this case by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate treated the application under Section 156(3) as complaint and proceeded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and according to him that procedure was illegal because the said application cannot be treated as complaint. He has cited the case of Braham Singh Saini v. State of U.P., 2007 (1) JIC 244 , in which Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J. of this High Court has taken a view that such application cannot be treated as complaint. He has also cited the case of Masuman v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (1) ALJ 221, in which the same Hon’ble Judge has taken the same view. But the legal position to my mind is different. In the case of Shiv Narain Jaiswal and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (1) JIC 44, Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J. of this High Court has also taken a different view. In the case of Joseph Mathuri alias Vishveshwarananda and another v. Swami Sachidanand Harisakshi and another, 2001 (3) Crimes 384 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has also taken a contrary view. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 7484 of 2004, Mohan Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and another, Hon’ble Amar Saran, J. has also taken view that the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint. In Criminal Revision No. 1667 of 2006, Chandrika Singh v. State of U.P., Hon’ble Shiv Charan, J. has sought to distinguish the case of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P., JT 2001 (2) SC 81. The Full Court decision in the case of Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (43) ACC 50, has also clarified the matter and it is evident that the application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint. The Full Court decision in the case of Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (43) ACC 50, has also clarified the matter and it is evident that the application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint. Thus, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surajmal v. State, 1995(2) JIC 1523 , does not lay down the correct law. The decision taken by Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J. in the Masuman’s case has been referred to the larger Bench by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Rastogi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9297 of 2007, Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007 (5) ADJ 560 . 4. In view of above legal positions, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has exercised the correct option by treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and made suitable inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and found a prima facie case against the applicant and summoned them for trial. No illegality in the order appears. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. ————