JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned AGA for the State and perused the recor. 2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, Court No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 564/14 and order dated 14.11.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Application No. 1211/14, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., would demonstrate the commission of cognizable offence, thus, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law. 4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State and Another; (2011) 1 ADJ 333 , in para 62 has observed that "The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petitions or petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C." 5. In view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Father Thomas (Supra), the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed.