JUDGMENT : S.G SHAH, J. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 2 - State. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.J Goswami for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent No. 2 - State. 3. Perused the record. The petitioners herein are original accused in Criminal Inquiry No. 25 of 2006 filed by present respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 - complainant has preferred such complaint u/ss.465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that only because of common name of his ancestors as well as ancestors of accused, the accused have with malafide intention and with a desire to get undue advantage, got the agricultural land owned and occupied by the complainant, mutated in their name only because name of ancestors was almost similar. However, it is contended that the name of the ancestors of the accused is Somabhai Hirabhai Patel and therefore, when name of the applicants is also Somabhai Hirabhai Patel, applicants - accused have taken disadvantage of such similar name. When such complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Lunavada, the Magistrate has after considering the contents of the complaint and documentary evidence produced with it, came to the conclusion that police investigation is necessary to ascertain the commission of offence so also the evidence and real culprits and therefore, ordered investigation to be carried out by the police u/s.156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Code’, for short). 4. Such order is under challenge in this application. Therefore, prima facie this is an interlocutory order and therefore, when Magistrate has yet not called upon the accused, so also police is yet to examine the contents of the complaint and to investigate that whether any offence is committed at all by any of the applicants, the present application is premature. However, pursuant to such order, when Lunavada police has registered the FIR as M. Case No. 3 of 2016 on 20.8.2016, the present applicants have approached the Sessions Court for filing Revision Application. It is categorically pleaded in the memo of Revision Application that when such Revision Application was presented before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court has failed to register such Revision Application contending that once FIR is registered, the only option available with the applicant is to file a quashing petition before this Court. 5. It is categorically pleaded in the memo of Revision Application that when such Revision Application was presented before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court has failed to register such Revision Application contending that once FIR is registered, the only option available with the applicant is to file a quashing petition before this Court. 5. In addition to such non-exercising of jurisdiction by the Sessions Court, the applicants have pleaded that though respondent-complainant has filed Civil Suit for the same dispute and though Civil Court has not granted any injunction in their favour, the complainant has not disclosed such fact in the complaint and thereby, suppress the material and relevant facts, and that this being a dispute of civil nature, the impugned order of the Magistrate forwarding the investigation to police u/s.156(3) of the Code is unwarranted and illegal. 6. I do not find any substance in such submissions except an issue regarding non-exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Sessions Court and that too without registering the Revision Application proposed to be filed by the present applicants, copy of which is produced at Annexure-E. It is an undisputed fact that if at all some mutation entries have got to be certified by the applicants, without they being the legal heirs of the real owners of the land and while doing so, if they have filed any documents in jany form viz. affidavit, pedigree etc., then, genuineness and authenticity of such documents certainly needs to be verified when complainant has categorically disclosed that only because of similar name of the parties, applicants are taking disadvantage in mutating the properties of the respondent No. 1 complainant in their name. Therefore, if there are forged documents, then, irrespective of dispute of civil nature regarding right of ownership and possession, if any offence has taken place or which is otherwise punishable in any other enactment including the IPC, then, certainly, there would be criminal proceedings against the culprits even if civil litigation is filed or pending to secure the civil rights of the complainant. Basic difference of civil and criminal jurisprudence is that civil jurisprudence protects the rights of the parties, whereas, criminal jurisprudence punishes the culprit who has committed illegality and any offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because civil litigation is pending, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated at all. 7. Basic difference of civil and criminal jurisprudence is that civil jurisprudence protects the rights of the parties, whereas, criminal jurisprudence punishes the culprit who has committed illegality and any offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because civil litigation is pending, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated at all. 7. So far as powers of the Magistrate to order police investigation u/s.156(3) is concerned, which is under challenge in this Revision Application, the petitioners are relying upon the following two decisions:- (a) In the matter between Anil Kumar v. M.K Aiyappa, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the provisions of Sections 19(1) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with reference to the issues of public accountability, vigilance and prevention of corruption and held that requirement of sanction is mandatory when the complaint is against a public servant even before directing investigation by police u/s.156(3) of the Code and even at pre-cognizance stage when private complaint against public servant is filed u/s.200 of the Code. Thus, what is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is to the effect that investigation u/s.156(3) of the Code cannot be ordered without previous sanction u/s.19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is quite clear, as usual, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon few observations and lines from the entire judgment so as to interpret the judgment in its widest sense and to confirm that irrespective of any other facts, circumstances and issue, there cannot be order of investigation u/s.156(3) of the Code and that such order needs to be a reasoned and speaking order. However, it is not the ratio of the judgment under reference, though it is stated in the same judgment that Magistrate is required to apply his mind before passing an order u/s.156(3). It goes without saying that such observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is with reference to the necessity of sanction u/s.19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act when complaint is against public servant and not in any wider sense. It goes without saying that such observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is with reference to the necessity of sanction u/s.19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act when complaint is against public servant and not in any wider sense. It would be relevant to recollect the later part of the phrase, which is used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the same sentence in paragraph 11, which reads as under:- “After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted.” 8. The reading of the entire judgment makes it clear that it was mainly because of a private complaint against the public servant and therefore, when Special Court has directed investigation u/s.156(3) of the Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Special Judge is treated as Magistrate and enjoys all magisterial powers available under the Code and thereby, he is entitled to take cognizance u/s.190 of the Code, but before proceeding further he should have verified the valid sanction against a Government servant and to that extent, if an order directing police investigation is not disclosing the existence of valid sanction, then, it is necessary for the Court to reflect in the order, what weighed upon the Court for passing such order, but immediately, while saying so, it is so added that a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. Therefore, only because of cited case, it cannot be said that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set-aside in such revisional jurisdiction when there is no irregularity or illegality. 9. The applicant is also relying upon the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 (2) GLH 356 wherein the Single Judge of this Court has proposed that every Magistrate shall record a short order disclosing the reason why he has ordered investigation u/s.156(3) of the Code through police agency and thereby, why he is not able to try the case himself, further holding that in absence of any such reasons, the order to direct inquiry u/s.156(3) should be treated as bad. The Single Judge was considering the provisions of Section 202(2) and 156(3) of the Code, but with due respect, when Section 156 is quite clear and empowers the Magistrate to pass such an order of investigation, I do not see any reason or substance to restrict the jurisdiction and powers of the Magistrate confirmed under the statute only because of some observations as proposed by Single Judge in such sole cited case. 10. For the purpose, bare reading of Sections 156 and 190 of the Code would be relevant, which reads as under:- “156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.- (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate], investigate any cognizable 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. 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” 11. Bare reading of both the Sections make it clear that any Magistrate upon receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such offence, may order an investigation by a police officer and for the purpose, the only requirement is receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such offence and therefore, when Magistrate has received complaint disclosing the commission of some offence, he is certainly entitled to order such investigation. 12. 12. However, at this juncture, I am restricting further discussion on the subject for a different reason i.e submission by the applicant that though impugned order is subject to revisional jurisdiction by the Sessions Court and High Court as provided u/s.397 of Cr.P.C, the Sessions Court has failed to accept their revision application, which results into material irregularity and illegality on the part of the Sessions Court in not accepting the revision application. Therefore, at this stage, instead of determining the issue on hand finally, it would be appropriate to direct the Sessions Court, Panchmahals, Camp at Lunavada to register and to decide the revision application in accordance with law. For the purpose, record and proceedings of this revision application may be transmitted to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals camp at Lunavada, to avoid the issue of limitation and repeated filing of same set of papers, for the purpose, applicant shall provide a full set of revision application with pleadings and annexures for keeping it on record of this Court. 13. It is settled legal position that Sessions Court should not have refused to register the Revision Application. At the most, if Sessions Court is not satisfied with the contents of Revision Application, then, Sessions Court may pass appropriate orders after registering the revision application, but non-registration of Revision Application would certainly be termed as non-exercise of jurisdiction by the Sessions Court. 14. Therefore, the Revision Application is disposed of with above directions. The Registry shall forward the relevant papers to Sessions Court for registering the Criminal Revision Application as aforesaid.