JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Smt. Vimla Rathore assailing the impugned order dated 20.10.2015 passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Note Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal revision petition no. 213/15 by which learned revisional court while dismissing the revision petition, affirmed the order dated 18.9.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur whereby learned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner-complainant ordered to proceed under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. on an application submitted along with the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner-complainant submitted an application u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with complaint before the learned Magistrate and prayed that information be forwarded to SHO, P.S. Ashok Nagar, Jaipur for causing investigation u/S. 156(3) of the Code and thereupon submit report to this court u/S. 173(2) of Cr.P.C. within the time period as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court. 3. The first information report was annexed with this application as Annexure-P-5 which reads as under:- that on 24/3/2014, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Director of Gujarat Gajra Pinions Limited having Head Office at 10, M.G. Road, Indore-452001 Madhya Pradesh and also running the business under the name and style of "Mr. Beans" (HOME CAFE) having office and works restaurant at E-141A, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001 through his associate Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh s/o Shri Ram Pratap Singh r/o D-32, Saraswati Marg, Banipark, Jaipur-302016 and others made an agreement (in writing, registered at Sub-Registrar office) with the informer that he will pay the monthly consideration on or before 7th date of every month. However, the consideration was never paid regularly and from May' 2014 no payment has been made till date. Similarly even TDS' was paid after a lot of delay. All along the informer was under impression that good sense will prevail and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh will make payments which might have been delayed due to recession or business upheaval due to change of name from "Mr. Beans" to "Home Cafe". The total consideration from May, 2014 to October' 2014 is amounting to Rs.3,34,892/- (Three Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two) due at the rate of Rs.62,492/- per month for which informer sent a legal notice dated 30/10/2014 through her counsel Mr. Beans" to "Home Cafe". The total consideration from May, 2014 to October' 2014 is amounting to Rs.3,34,892/- (Three Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two) due at the rate of Rs.62,492/- per month for which informer sent a legal notice dated 30/10/2014 through her counsel Mr. Hihanshu Agnihotri, to which a reply dated 13/11/2014 was sent by Mr. Singh through Mr. R.K. Malviya. In the reply, they admit that there was a business relationship between us but sometime in May' 2014, they prepared some fraudulent documents in connivance with co-sharers of the property by which they claim to have ousted me from the ownership. This is case of fabrication of documents related to the property situated at E-141A-02, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur in which my ownership and possession is well established since 1980 till date but by preparing the fraudulent documents, the accused persons are claiming that I have no right on the property. 4. Name & Address of the Criminal: To Be Investigated As Per Law- (i) Abhimanyu Singh (ii) Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh (iii) Other unknown persons may be co-sharers of property. 5. Steps taken regarding investigation explanation of delay in regarding information. No Delay It is requested that a FIR be registered and investigation may be caused to bring the culprits to face the consequences of their offences. The criminal case is about fabrications of documents to dispossess the informer from her property. Separate eviction proceedings and civil suit for recovery are being filed." 4. After hearing on application and perusing the said report Annexure-5 learned Magistrate decided to proceed according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for recording the statements of complainant and her witnesses u/Ss. 200 & 202 Cr.PC. The said impugned order dated 18.9.2015 was challenged in revision petition by the petitioner which was affirmed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 20.10.2015. 5. Aggrieved by both these orders, petitioner complainant has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482, 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Rule 315 (H) of Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant Mr. 5. Aggrieved by both these orders, petitioner complainant has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482, 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Rule 315 (H) of Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant Mr. Mahendra Gaur submits that from the perusal of said report, Annexure-5-cognisable offence is disclosed, therefore, Learned Magistrate was duty bound to allow the application Annexure-4 and direct concerned SHO for registering FIR as envisaged u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate failed to do so, so as revisional court also, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and both the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the application of petitioner complainant may be allowed. The SHO, PS Ashok Nagar may be directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter as per law. 7. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of Babu Lal v. State of Raj. & Ors. [2010(1) RLW (Raj.) 240]; Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam [ 1961 (0) Cr.LJ 39 Equivalent : 1961 AIR (SC) 986]; Gopal Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi [ 2012 (192) DLT 106 ] and Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [ 2013 (14) JT 399 ]. 8. Per contra, Dy. Government Advocate Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav support the impugned order and submitted that provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not mandatory. Its discretionary to the learned Magistrate whether the complaint relating to cognisable offence be sent to police for registering FIR or to proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant as well as Dy. Government Advocate and perused the impugned order available on record. 10. In the matter of Babu Lal v. State of Raj. (supra) Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that "Whenever an aggrieved person approaches a Magistrate with the prayer that the police has refused to register his report in respect of a cognisable offence, then the Magistrate is required to look into his application only to determine whether any cognisable offence is disclosed thereby or not. In case it is so disclosed, then the Magistrate has no option but to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case." 11. In case it is so disclosed, then the Magistrate has no option but to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case." 11. In the matter of Gopal Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) it was held that affidavit is essential with application for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. therefore, the facts of this case are different from the present case. 12. In the matter of Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a complaint disclosing cognisable offences may well justify a Magistrate in sending the complaint, under Section 156(3) to the police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted. Primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognisable offences is with the police. On the other hand, there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognisable offence. If he does so then he would have to proceed in the manner provided by Chapter XVI of the Code. Numerous cases were cited before us in support of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 13. In the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., therefore, facts of this case are also distinguishable from the present controversy. 14. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant in the present writ petition is whether the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C are mandatory or discretionary. 15. Though, in the matter of Babul Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra) Coordinate Bench of this court has held that in a case of cognisable offence if application u/S 156(3) Cr.PC is submitted by the complainant before the learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate has no option to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the case. 16. In the matter of Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court used word "On the other hand, there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognisable offence" clearly speaks that the provision is discretionary, not mandatory. Similarly, in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) (sic.). Similarly, in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) (sic.). Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the learned Magistrate, as we find, while exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has narrated the allegations and, thereafter, without any application of mind, has passed an order to register an FIR for the offences mentioned in the application. The duty cast on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be marginalized. To (understand the real purport of the same, we think it apt to reproduce the said provision : "156. Police officer's power to investigate cognisable case.- (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of 3 Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any, stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned." 18. Dealing with the nature of power exercised by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C, a three-Judge Bench in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others had to express thus: "It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under Section 173. " 19. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, 2013 (10) SCC 705 the two-Judge Bench had to say this: 'The scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. " 19. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, 2013 (10) SCC 705 the two-Judge Bench had to say this: 'The scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed [ 2008(5) SCC 668 ] examined the requirement of the application of mid by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the 1 order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) 1 Cr.P.C, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation." 17. In the said judgment, it is further observed that in our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be support by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the 2 truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever, only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision, which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there have to be prior applications under Section 156(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that the application under Section 156(3) be support by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.s 18. From the above, it is clear that the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is discretionary and not mandatory. This court also in the matter of Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3595/2015 decided on 16.10.2015 held that the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are discretionary and not mandatory. 19. In the case in hand, from the perusal of allegations in FIR also the dispute is between the landlord and tenant and co-sharer, therefore, it seems that considering the nature of dispute, learned Magistrate after applying his mind decided to proceed as per Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and the same was affirmed by the learned revisional court which does not require any interference while exercising powers vested in this court Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, there is no merit in this petition and same is dismissed. 20. 20. However, it is expected from the learned Magistrate that the inquiry may be completed as expeditiously as possible.