ORDER :- "Whether more than one F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents" is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 29-7-2008, passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Case No. 900 of 2007 (Parvez Parwaz v. Yogi Aditya Nath and others) has been challenged. 2. By the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as the applicant) under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr. P. C.), has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no justification to get the second FIR registered regarding the same incidents. 3. The facts emerging from the record, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Parvez Parwaz moved an application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur on 16-11-2007. On that application, a report was called for from S.O. P. S. Cantt Gorakhpur, who submitted his report on 27-11-2007. After hearing argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned CJM Gorakhpur without going into the allegations made by the applicant against named and unnamed persons rejected the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by impugned order merely on the ground that another FIR regarding the same incident was lodged by Hazarat s/o Vismilla at P. S. Cantt at Case Crime No. 145/07, under sections 147, 436, 427, 506 IPC, Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act and section 2/3 U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, in which the charge-sheet also has been submitted and hence there is no justification to get the fresh FIR registered regarding the same incident. Hence this revision. 4. I have heard Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State at considerable length and perused the record. 5. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that from the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr. Hence this revision. 4. I have heard Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State at considerable length and perused the record. 5. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that from the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C, cognizable offences of very serious nature requiring investigation are made out against the Member of Parliament Sri Yogi Aditya Nath and other persons, but the learned CJM without applying his mind to the averments made in the application declined to get the FIR registered merely on the ground that in view of the FIR already registered at Case Crime No. 145 of 2007, there is no justification to get the fresh FIR registered regarding the same incidents. The contention of Sri Naqvi was that this view of the learned CJM is wholly erroneous, as more than one FIR can be registered regarding the same incident. For this contention, Sri Naqvi has placed reliance on the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others (2004) 13 SCC 292 : (2004 All LJ 3436). 6. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that if on the basis of the allegations made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, prima-facie cognizable offence of serious nature requiring investigation is disclosed, then the Magistrate is bound to pass order for registration of FIR and its investigation by the police and in such case, the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. cannot be treated as complaint. For this submission, Sri Naqvi has placed reliance on the following rulings : (i) Gulab Chand Upadhyaya v. State of U.P., 2002 (44) All Cri 670 : (2002 All LJ 1225). (ii) Ram Pal Singh v. State of U. P. 2007 (57) All Cri 61 : (2007 (1) ALJ (NOC) 121). (iii) Rakesh Mohan Sharma v. State of U. P. 2007 (57) All Cri 488 : (2007 (1) ALJ (NOC) 124). (iv) Rakesh Kumar v. State of U. P. 2007 (57) All Cri 489. (v) Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164 . (vi) Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P., 2001 (43) ACC 50 : (2001 All LJ 1587) 7. (iv) Rakesh Kumar v. State of U. P. 2007 (57) All Cri 489. (v) Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164 . (vi) Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P., 2001 (43) ACC 50 : (2001 All LJ 1587) 7. The learned AGA on the other hand, submitted that the Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, even if the cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations made in the application and in appropriate cases, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. can be treated as complaint. For this submission, the learned AGA has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi v. State of U. P. 2007 (59) All Cri 739 : (2007(6) ALJ 424). 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties counsel, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that more than one FIR can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents and contrary view expressed by the learned CJM in the impugned order is wholly erroneous. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned CJM did not go into the allegations made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and the said application has been rejected by him merely on the ground that another FIR regarding the same incidents was registered at crime No. 145 of 2007 at P. S. Cantt, in which the charge-sheet has been submitted. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (supra), more than one FIR can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents. This Court also has held in the case of Vipin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2005 (51) All Cri 533 : (2005 All LJ 782) that registration of more than one FIR regarding the same incident is not prohibited. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not right in declining to get the FIR registered in present case on the ground that another FIR regarding the same incident has already been registered, in which charge-sheet has been submitted. 10. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not right in declining to get the FIR registered in present case on the ground that another FIR regarding the same incident has already been registered, in which charge-sheet has been submitted. 10. Annexure (1) is the copy of the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, which was moved by the applicant-revisionist in the Court of CJM Gorakhpur on 16-11-2007. Certain allegations made in the said application are worth mentioning which are reproduced below : (Vernacular matter omitted.............Ed.) In para 5 of the application it is alleged that : (Vernacular matter omitted.............Ed.) The following allegations have been made in para 6 of the application : (Vernacular matter omitted.............Ed.) 11. In addition to the aforesaid averments, various other allegations have also been made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. From all these allegations, prima facie cognizable offences of very serious nature requiring police investigation are disclosed. Hence, the learned CJM Gorakhpur ought to have passed the order in present case for registration of FIR against the persons named in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and its investigation by the police, but it is very unfortunate that due to lack of adequate legal knowledge, without going into the allegations made in that application, the learned CJM has rejected the application merely on the ground that in view of the FIR registered at Case Crime No. 145 of 2007 at P. S. Cantt, there is no justification to get the second FIR registered. This view of the learned CJM is wholly erroneous. Annexure (iv) is the copy of the FIR, which was registered at Case Crime No. 145 of 2007, at P. S. Cantt Gorakhpur on the basis of the application of Hazarat s/o Vismilla. On perusal of this FIR, it is revealed that the said FIR relates to the incident, which had occurred on 27-1-2007 at about 6.00 p.m., in which damage was caused to the shop of the complainant Hazarat by some named persons of Hindu Yuwa Wahini. That FIR was lodged regarding one incident only, whereas in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. a number of incidents have been mentioned, which occurred on different places affecting different persons. That FIR was lodged regarding one incident only, whereas in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. a number of incidents have been mentioned, which occurred on different places affecting different persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR registered at Case Crime No. 145 of 2007 covers all the incidents mentioned in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, there was no legal bar in this case to get the First Information Report registered on the basis of the application moved by the applicant-revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and its investigation by the police, because all the allegations made in the said application and in the FIR registered at Case Crime No. 145 of 2007 are not the same. 12. Although, in view of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi v. State of U. P., 2007 (59) All Cri 739 : (2007 (6) ALJ 424) in which Full Bench decision of the case of Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P., 2001 (43) All Cri 50 : (2001 All LJ 1587) has been relied upon, application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. can be treated as complaint, but on the basis of the allegations made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in present case, prima facie cognizable offences of very serious nature requiring police investigation are disclosed. Hence, treating the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as complaint in present case would not be legal and justified. While passing order for treating the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as complaint, the following observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta (supra) must be kept in mind by the Magistrates/Judges :- "However, it is always to be kept in mind that it is the primary duty of the police to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences and aggrieved person cannot be forced to proceed in the manner provided by Chapter XV and to produce his witnesses at his cost to bring home the charge to the accused. It is the duty of the State to provide safeguards to the life and property of a citizen. It is the duty of the State to provide safeguards to the life and property of a citizen. If any intrusion is made by an offender, it is for the State to set the law into motion and come to the aid of the person aggrieved." 13. Therefore, having regard to the aforecited observations made by the Full Bench, the Magistrates/Judges should not shirk their legal responsibility to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on the applications under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the cases where on the basis of the averments made therein and the material, if any, brought on record in support thereof, prima facie cognizable offence of serious nature requiring police investigation is made out and in such cases the aggrieved person should not be compelled to collect and produce the evidence at his cost to bring home the charges to the accused by passing an order to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. as complaint thereby forcing the aggrieved person to proceed in the manner provided by chapter XV Cr. P. C. 14. The following observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in paras 4 and 5 of the judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164 are also worth mentioning :- "4. It is a matter of experience of one of us (B.N. Agrawal, J.) while acting as Judge of the Patna High Court, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and Judge of this Court that in spite of law laid down by this Court, the police authorities concerned do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the High Court or this Court. Further, experience shows that even after orders are passed by the courts concerned for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting Judges of the High Court during the course of inspection of the courts and Superintendents of Police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered. In a large number of cases investigations do not commence even after registration of FIRs and in a case like the present one, steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person with reasonable dispatch. At times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the members of the judiciary in a State, the police becomes hostile to them, for instance, in Bihar when a bail petition filed by a police personnel, who was the accused was rejected by a member of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service, he was assaulted in the courtroom for which contempt proceeding was initiated by the Patna High Court and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. 5. On the other hand, there are innumerable cases that where the complainant is a practical person, FIRs are registered immediately, copies thereof are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with supersonic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were the subject-matter of theft or dacoity. In the case before us allegations have been made that the Station House Officer of the police station concerned is pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint, which, if true, is a very disturbing state of affairs. We do not know, there may be innumerable such instances." 15. After making above mentioned observations, the Honble Apex Court issued certain directions vide para 6 at page 165 :- "6. In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to the Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and copies hereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the FIRs to the complainants, within twenty-four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were the subject-matter of theft or dacoity. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were the subject-matter of theft or dacoity. In case FIRs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the Magistrate concerned would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the disciplinary authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same." 16. When the aforesaid case was called for hearing on 8-8-2008, the Honble Supreme Court passed the following order, which too is worth noticing :- "Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax as well to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and all the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of police, as the case may be, let order dated 14th July, 2008, and this order be put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so that the people of India may know what directions have been given by this Court and they may take appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the concerned officer of the police station in instituting a case and the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of complaint petition and give direction to institute the case within the time directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental proceeding." 17. The Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U. P. (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 440 : (2008 (1) ALJ 752) that the magistrate has implied/incidental power to direct/monitor the police investigation. 18. The Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U. P. (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 440 : (2008 (1) ALJ 752) that the magistrate has implied/incidental power to direct/monitor the police investigation. 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur, being wholly illegal, is liable to be set-aside, so that fresh order on the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. may be passed. 19. Consequently the revision is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur is directed to pass fresh order on the application dated 16-11-2007 moved by the applicant-revisionist Parvaz Parwaz, under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. and it must be ensured that after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application, proper investigation is carried out. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur through the District Judge concerned for his future guidance and improving legal knowledge. Revision allowed.