ORDER : Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri A. R. S. Chauhan, learned P.L. for the respondent No. 2/State. Heard. 2. This revision under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the order dated 28-5-2015 passed by IInd A.S.J, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No. 227/2013 whereby the order dated 18-4-2011 passed by the C.J.M., Chhatarpur has been set aside. 3. Brief facts are as follows :— Non-applicant No. 1 preferred an application under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The learned C.J.M, Chhatarpur vide order dated 16-11-2010 dismissed the same stating that neither the petitioner has listed any witness nor it has been filed in the form of a complaint, therefore, the Court cannot issue direction to lodge the F.I.R to investigate the matter at the behest of the applicant. This order was under challenge before the 8th A.S.J. Fast Track Court, Chhattarpur in Criminal Revision No. 254/2010. The learned A.S.J. vide order dated 29-1-2011 discussing the legal points involved allowed the revision and setting aside the order dated 16-11-2010 directed the Court of C.J.M. to act in accordance with law on the application under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Learned C.J.M., Chhatarpur after reconsidering the petition and having heard the supplementary arguments decided the same on 18-4-2011 and held, that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment pronounced in Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 ordered that neither it can be directed to the police to register the crime and investigate the matter nor can it make the inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hence, the application was dismissed. 5. Again, revision was preferred against this order and the same was decided on 28-5-2015 by the IInd A.S.J. in Criminal Revision No. 227/2013 and allowed the revision. Setting aside the order dated 18-4-2011, directed the trial Court to act in accordance to law. 6. 5. Again, revision was preferred against this order and the same was decided on 28-5-2015 by the IInd A.S.J. in Criminal Revision No. 227/2013 and allowed the revision. Setting aside the order dated 18-4-2011, directed the trial Court to act in accordance to law. 6. The matter basically relates to allegation of the petitioner having prepared forged “caste certificate” and filed the same before the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Chhatarpur and on the basis of forged documents, obtained a “caste certificate” on the basis of this certificate received scholarship for his sons. He also endorsed in his service record and filed application before the school. The complainant producing certified copy of all these documents requested to initiate action against the accused/applicant. 7. Heard the parties. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has discussed the relevant provisions of Chapter (XII) and Chapter (XV) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and made the following observations :— “25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuge to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under section 154(3) and section 36, Criminal Procedure Code before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3). 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3), Criminal Procedure Code or other police officer referred to in section 36, Criminal Procedure Code. If despite approaching the Superintendent of police or the officer referred to in section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach Magistrate under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. Why then should writ petitions or section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies. 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 and 145(3) before the concerned police officer, and if that is of no avail, under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 30. It may be further mentioned that in view of section 36, Criminal Procedure Code if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBR vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001 Cri.L.J 968, R. P. Kapur vs. S. P. Singh, (1961) 2 SCR 143 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A. C. Saldanna, (1980) 1 SCC 554 . 39. A Divisional Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Guruduth Prabhu and others vs. M. S. Krishna Bhat and others, 1999 Cri.L.J. 3909 has also discussed the issue in detail both in the context of Chapters XII and XV of the Code. The relevant paragraphs read as under :— 10. Let us first consider whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to refer the matter for police investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant paragraphs read as under :— 10. Let us first consider whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to refer the matter for police investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of section 156 confers on the police unrestricted power to investigate a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate or without a formal First Information report. The police are entitled to investigate cognizable offence either on information under section 154 or on their own motion, on their own knowledge or from other reliable : information. This statutory right to investigate cognizable offence cannot be interfered with or controlled by the Courts including the High Court. It is open to the Court to take or not to take action when the police prefer a charge-sheet after investigation. But the Court’s function does not begin until the charge-sheet is filed. Under sub-section (2), police can investigate any offence taking the matter to be a cognizable offence although ultimately charges are filed for a non-cognizable offence since while investigating a cognizable offence, the police are not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising out of the same facts and including it in the report to be filed by them under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (3) empowers the Magistrate to refer and direct the police to investigate a cognizable offence. But, there is a restriction on the Magistrate before directing the police to investigate under sub-section (3), the Magistrate should form an opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant before him disclose a cognizable offence. When the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police investigation under sub-section (3). In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. Such an order which is passed without application of mind is clearly an order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed directing the police to investigate under sub-section (3) of section 156, Criminal Procedure Code passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by this Court either under section 428, Criminal Procedure Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find from the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind before directing police investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. We find from the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind before directing police investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. If the Magistrate had applied his mind, the Magistrate could have found that no cognizable offence is made out even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted. We have already come to conclusion that none of the complaints filed by the complainants disclose a cognizable offence alleged under section 167, Indian Penal Code. On this count alone, the direction given by the Magistrate is liable to be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Cri.L.J. 527 has held that the High Court either exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and quash the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the end of justice. 11. Sub-section (3) of section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, empowers Magistrate to order an investigation. Under section 157(1), Criminal Procedure Code an officer in charge of a Police Station having reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156, Criminal Procedure Code to investigate should send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and should proceed in person or depute one of his prescribed deputies to proceed to the spot to investigate under section 157(1)(a) when the offender is named and if the case is not of a serious nature the officer need proceed in person or depute his subordinate. Under section 157(1)(b), if it appears to such police officer that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation he shall not investigate the case and the officer should inform the complainant under the prescribed manner. Thus, the police officer, who is empowered to investigate on the information received by him of the commission of a cognizable offence can decide whether there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation and if there is no sufficient ground he should not investigate the case. But, once the Magistrate orders an investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, the police officer is bound to investigate the matter and there is no question of his deciding not to investigate. But, once the Magistrate orders an investigation under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, the police officer is bound to investigate the matter and there is no question of his deciding not to investigate. Thus, by an order of the Magistrate under section 157 is taken away. It is, therefore, very important that the Magistrate applies his mind and finds that the allegations, made in the complaint filed under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before him discloses an offence. If every complaint filed under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code is referred to the police under section 156(3) without application of mind about the disclosure of an offence, there is every likelihood of unscrupulous complainants making bald allegations just to see that the alleged accused are harassed by the police who have no other go except to investigate as ordered by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and in only cases which disclose an offence, the Magistrate get jurisdiction to order an investigation by the police if he does not take cognizance of the offence.” 9. In the case of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (1) AD (CRI) SC 34, it is held that :— “It is true that section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations, but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases, where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in to help the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even under section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code.” 10. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even under section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code.” 10. In the foregoing precedents, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the issue and given the guidelines that the powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are serious or evidence is beyond the reason of complaint or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of articles or discretionary of fact. The prerequisite to be followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a discretionary remedy as the provisions proceeds with the word “may.” The Magistrate is, therefore, required to exercise his mind while doing so, while passing such order he has to satisfy himself that the information reveals about the commission of cognizable offence and also about necessity of police investigation for finding out evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of police. 11. For the benefit of the trial Court, it would be expedient to reproduce the guidance prescribed in the case of Ramyash Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 2013 (2) M.P.H.T. 521 where it is held that :— “(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the police station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/ persons arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the police, when approached by the complainant under section 154(3) of the Code. (ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the police in the matter. (ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the order passed by him. Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status? report by the police is to be for before passing final orders. (iii) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a complaint under section 200 of the Code, if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code.” 12. With this direction, the order of the IInd A.S.J., Chattarpur is upheld. This revision is disallowed. It is directed to the Court of CJM, Chattarpur to act in accordance to law with the above direction given in the case of Ramyash Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 2013 (2) M.P.H.T. 521 .