ORDER : 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of M. Cr. C. No. 11019/12 and M. Cr. C. No. 10799/2012. 2. These petitions (M. Cr. C. No. 11019/12 and M. Cr. C. No. 10799/2012) under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been preferred by the applicants/accused against the order dated 17-5-2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhnadon, District Seoni, whereby learned JMFC on the application filed under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the complainant/respondent No. 2, directed the Station House Officer, Lakhnadon to register the FIR on the complaint and investigate the matter and file final report before the Court. 3. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of the case are that the complainant Harish Chandra Ahirwar filed an application under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned JMFC, Lakhnadon along with a complaint averring that he had an agricultural land bearing survey No. 105/5 area 0.65 hectare situated at village Pipariya, Patwari Halka No. 8, Chamari, Tehsil Chapra, District Seoni. On 20-4-2006 applicant Chetram took revenue papers of his aforesaid land, ration card, his identity card, photo and also got his signature on a stamp paper on the pretext to get him bank loan available. However, despite repeated reminders applicant/accused Chetram neither made loan available to him from the Bank, nor did he return his documents, therefore, on 16-6-2007 a written report in this regard was also lodged by him at P.S. Lakhnadon. On 24-3-2012 when he went to area Patwari to get new loan pustika, he informed him that the said land has been mutated in the name of applicant/accused Smt. Chandra Kanta Bokade on the basis of registered sale deed. On that he got copy of the said sale deed from Registrar Office Lakhnadon. Thereafter, he came to know that applicant Gokul Prasad the then Patwari had wrongly issued the sale slip of his land and applicants Chetram Bakode and Smt. Chandrakanta in connivance with Document Writer Vijay Kumar Soni prepared forged sale deed and executed the sale deed by producing one imposter as complainant before the Sub-Registrar, where applicant Domanlal and Taam Singh also signed that sale deed and identified that person as complainant. Thus, applicants Chetram Bakode and Smt. Chandrakanta in connivance with Vijay Kumar Soni, Gokul Prasad, Doman Lal, Taam Singh and Sub-Registrar T. L. Bhoyar executed said sale deed of the complainant’s land in favour of applicant Chandrakanta Bakode and on the basis of said forged sale deed Smt. Chandrakanta got her name recorded on complainant’s land in the revenue papers. So action be taken against them. Learned JMFC by order dated 17-5-2012 observing that from perusal of complaint and documents produced along with the complaint the incident appears to be of serious in nature directed the Station House Officer, Lakhnadon to register the FIR on the complaint and investigate the matter and file final report before the Court. 4. Being aggrieved from that order applicant Gokul Prasad filed M. Cr. C. No. 10799/2012 and applicants Chetram Bakode, Smt. Chandrakanta Bakode, Vijay Kumar Soni, Doman Lal and Tam Singh filed M. Cr. C. No. 11019/2012. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that from perusal of the complaint it appears that the complainant filed the complaint to take cognizance for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 471, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. Offence punishable under section 467 is triable by Court of Sessions and in that case according to section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code learned JMFC is not entitled to send the complaint for investigation without examining the complainant and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even before sending complaint for registering FIR, magistrate ought to record the statement of accused/applicants also. He further stated that complainant also filed the complaint against Patwari and Sub Registrar, who are Government servants, but learned magistrate without considering the provisions of section 197 of Cr.P.C. mechanically sent the complainant for registration of FIR against them. Complainant had earlier also lodged a report before Tehsildar, Lakhnadon on the same issue, who had enquired into the matter and recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and after enquiry he found the complaint to be false. On the strength of aforesaid it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 6. Complainant had earlier also lodged a report before Tehsildar, Lakhnadon on the same issue, who had enquired into the matter and recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and after enquiry he found the complaint to be false. On the strength of aforesaid it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in sending the complaint under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Station House Officer for registering the FIR and investigation of the complaint. 7. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the counsels of both the parties. 8. As regard to the objections raised by the learned counsels of the applicants that before sending complaint under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code for registration of FIR learned Magistrate is bound to record the statements of accused persons also and in the cases where complaint was filed for the offences which are triable by Court of sessions; before sending complaint for registering of FIR magistrate is bound to record the statements of complainant and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code under which Magistrate is bound to record the statements of accused persons also before sending complaint for registering of FIR. Likewise, in the cases where complaint is filed for the offences which are triable by sessions; before sending complaint for registering of FIR Magistrate is not bound to record the statements of complainant and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459 after considering various earlier decisions, propounded the following legal propositions: “1. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459 after considering various earlier decisions, propounded the following legal propositions: “1. That a Magistrate can order investigation under section 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognizance under sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14 he is not entitled in law to order any investigation under section 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to section 202 he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by section 202 of the Code.” 10. In the case of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 628 Hon’ble Apex Court after examining the provisions of section 156, 173, 190, 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code held as under:- “The position is thus clear. Any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.” 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185 also observe as thus:- “24. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185 also observe as thus:- “24. The law is well settled that an investigation ordered by the Magistrate under Chapter XII is at the pre-cognizance stage and the inquiry and/or investigation ordered under section 202 is at the post-cognizance stage. What we have to consider is whether the Magistrate committed any error in refusing the appellant’s prayer for an investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Code and resorting to section 202 of the Code instead, since both the two courses were available to him. 25. The power to direct an investigation to the police authorities is available to the Magistrate both under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code and under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. The only difference is the stage at which the said powers may be invoked. As indicated hereinbefore, the power under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to direct an investigation by the police authorities is at the pre-cognizance stage while the power to direct a similar investigation under section 202 is at the post-cognizance stage.” 12. So the objections raised by the learned counsels of the applicants that before sending complaint under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code for registration of FIR learned Magistrate is bound to record the statements of accused persons also and in the cases where complaint was filed for the offences which are triable by sessions before sending complaint for registering of FIR Magistrate is bound to record the statements of complainant and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code have no force. 13. But, if we examine the impugned order on the point whether learned Magistrate before passing the order, ascertained that the matter need to be referred to Police for investigation as provided in section 156(3) of the Code or needs to proceed further as provided in section 200 and subsequent sections of Chapter XV of the Code. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 held as under:- “11. The scope of section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 held as under:- “11. The scope of section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692 examined the requirement of the application of mind 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, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 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), Criminal Procedure Code, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted.” 15. The Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Shashikant Shinde, 2013 All MR (Cri) 3060, held that, when a petition or complaint is presented before the Magistrate, in which a request is made for taking action as mentioned in section 2(d) of the Code, the Magistrate is expected to apply his mind. The Magistrate has to ascertain as to whether the contentions made in the petition/complaint constitute any offence. If they constitute some offence then the Magistrate is expected to take decision as to whether the matter needs to be referred to police for investigation as provided in section 156(3) of the Code or he needs to proceed further as provided in section 200 and subsequent sections of Chapter XV of the Code. There is a discretion with the Magistrate in this regard. Though police officer is duty bound to register case on receiving information of cognizable offence, the Magistrate is not bound to refer the matter to police under section 156(3) of the Code. 16. There is a discretion with the Magistrate in this regard. Though police officer is duty bound to register case on receiving information of cognizable offence, the Magistrate is not bound to refer the matter to police under section 156(3) of the Code. 16. And a Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439 has held that the direction under section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine “existence of sufficient ground to proceed. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 observed as under:- “31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under sections 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 application under section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is 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 (2014) 2 SCC 1 . 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 (2014) 2 SCC 1 . That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 18. From the above discussed judgments it transpires that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course. Therefore, in the order of the Magistrate passed under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code regarding sending complaint for registration of FIR must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, 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), Criminal Procedure Code, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. 19. While in this case learned Magistrate only observing that from the perusal of complaint and documents produced along with the complaint the incident appears to be of serious nature allowed the application filed by the respondent under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Judge did not mention in the order as to what documents he perused and what weighed him to send the complaint for registering of FIR and did not even mention what cognizable offences were made out from the complaint. 20. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 17-5-2012 is not in accordance with law and reflects that the said order has been passed in a mechanical manner without detailed examination of the complaint and without applying mind to the allegations as contained in the complaint. 21. Accordingly, order dated 17-5-2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhnadon, District Seoni is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Court with a direction to decide the application filed under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code afresh after hearing the complainant and proceed with the case according to law. 22. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. 23. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Court with a direction to decide the application filed under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code afresh after hearing the complainant and proceed with the case according to law. 22. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. 23. A copy of this order be placed in the record of M. Cr. C. No. 10799/2012. Certified copy as per rules. Order accordingly.