JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order, dated 17/03/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Revision No.58/2015 thereby remanding the matter back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class with a direction to decide as to whether or not the complainant, who is non-applicant No.2 here, is entitled to get an order of the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short). 4. The above order or the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on the premise that as per the order passed by this Court on 29/06/2015 in Criminal Application [APL] No.735/2014, the Magistrate was required to only consider whether an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) could be issued or not issued and that he did not enjoy any freedom to pass any other order. The non-applicant No.2 had filed an application seeking a direction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner - Gopal and many more, cheated the government and misappropriated the government funds under the crop loan scheme of the government and thus committed offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 408, 409 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Initially, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class issued an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and that order was challenged by another accused before this Court by filing a criminal application being Criminal Application [APL] No.735/2014. The application was decided by this Court on 29/06/2015. This Court quashed and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate issuing direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, which confirmed the order of the Magistrate. This Court also directed the trial Judge to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. The direction issued by this Court in respect of which a restrictive interpretation has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present case, reads thus : “(ii) The trial Judge is directed to take up the complaint again for hearing on the question of issuance of order under Section 156(3) of the Code and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.” 6. A bare perusal of the above direction is sufficient to understand what the direction actually means. It means that the learned Magistrate has been directed to consider the question of issuance of an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) and after answering the question in the affirmative, pass an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The compass of the direction does not come to an end here. It goes further. It also takes into account the converse situation and, therefore, the direction also includes a suggestion about passing of an appropriate order in accordance with law. That means, in case the answer to the question posed to the learned Magistrate regarding issuance of order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or otherwise is in the negative, the learned Magistrate is required to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. This direction never indicated that no other discretion has been conferred upon the learned Magistrate and that he only has to decide to either proceed under Section 156(3) or dismiss the complaint at the threshold. 7. On going through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, dated 17/03/2017, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has misconstrued the import of the order of this Court and thus committed manifest error in law and facts in the present case. 8. Now, examination of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim, dated 06/11/2015 must be undertaken, because specific directions have been issued by this Court and it would be necessary to know as to whether or not the learned Magistrate has acted within the limits of power defined by this Court while issuing these directions. 9. The learned Magistrate, it is seen, has considered the question of making out of the case for issuance of an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & another vs. State of U.P. & others – AIR 2015 SC 1758 . The Apex Court has held that in such matters, Criminal Court is required to exercise care and caution and it should be loath to pass an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., if the complaint is not supported by an affidavit duly sworn in by the applicant. The Apex Court has held that in such matters, Criminal Court is required to exercise care and caution and it should be loath to pass an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., if the complaint is not supported by an affidavit duly sworn in by the applicant. The Supreme Court has held that issuing a direction stating “as per the application” to lodge FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in the society and also reflects an erroneous approach of the Criminal Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that today, there is an increased tendency amongst some trouble mongers to use such applications or power of the Criminal Court to direct investigation as a tool for achieving some unhealthy objects or motive. It also held that while there could be no dispute about the fact that a principled and really grieved citizen approaching the Court with clean hands must have free access to invoke the power, the Criminal Court at the same time, is required to keep a guard on the activities of the pervert litigants taking the route of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in order to embarrass or harass the honest litigants. Therefore, it issued certain directions which appear in paragraph 27 of the case. Paragraph 27 is reproduced as under : “27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported 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 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 has to be prior applications under Section 154(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 an the application under Section 156(3) be supported 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.” 10. It is clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate has followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and, therefore, rightly answered the question of issuing of any order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as in the negative and instead found that more opportunity should be given to the complainant to make out a prima facie case, when he said in his order, dated 06/11/2015, “going through the documents and the argument advanced at this stage, I am of the view in stead of sending the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the case to be put for verification. The complainant be put up for verification”. The Magistrate has neither committed any breach of the direction issued by this Court nor passed some order which is contrary to the settled principles of law. The complainant be put up for verification”. The Magistrate has neither committed any breach of the direction issued by this Court nor passed some order which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has to be held as illegal being contrary to the settled principles of law and it must go. 11. The application is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 17/03/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 06/11/2015 is confirmed. The other questions of facts and law raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and also by learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 are kept open. The application is disposed of accordingly.