JUDGMENT : SAMIR J. DAVE, J. 1. By preferring present application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside order dated 05.07.2021 passed by learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 and to allow the application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 filed by the applicant before the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that lands bearing revenue survey nos. 179, 180 and 229 of village Katargam, Surat were owned and occupied by the father of present applicant. After death of her father, the accused persons got a revenue entry no. 8219 mutated in the revenue record by creating forged documents and specifically an agreement dated 18.03.1993 in the name of present applicant by putting forged signatures of the applicant to show that the applicant has waived her rights from such lands and also made a false and bogus statement before the revenue authority and thereby, name of applicant came to be deleted from the revenue record of such lands. By way of such act, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicant filed written complaint before the Police Commissioner as well as Katargam Police Station. However, the police authority did not register the complaint as an FIR and rejected the complaint of the applicant by holding that nothing is required to be done as a civil suit was pending. Thereafter, the applicant obtained detailed inquiry report under the RTI, where she came to know that the forged document created by the accused persons, has not been recovered by the police. During the inquiry, one of the proposed accused viz. Maheshbhai Chhaganbhai stated before the police that he will produce copy of disputed document, but thereafter, neither he produced such document nor the police has demanded such document from such accused. Thereafter, by letter dated 04.04.2015, the relevant documents of revenue entry no. 8219 from the Mamlatdar, Choryashi, Surat, however, it was only a formality of writing a letter and police has not taken pain to obtain such record. The Investigating Officer has recorded in his report dated 25.10.2015 that present applicant has also executed another document dated 18.03.2009 on a stamp paper of Rs. 8219 from the Mamlatdar, Choryashi, Surat, however, it was only a formality of writing a letter and police has not taken pain to obtain such record. The Investigating Officer has recorded in his report dated 25.10.2015 that present applicant has also executed another document dated 18.03.2009 on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- to waive her rights from the lands of her father. However, the applicant has never executed any such document in the year 2009 on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. However, the police has not recovered any document during the investigation. Therefore, the applicant has approached the Court of learned Magistrate, Surat by way of an application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 for the direction to the Police Inspector, Katargam Police Station to register the complaint of the applicant. The said application came to be rejected by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat by an order dated 31.01.2019 holding that the prayer prayed for by the present applicant is not required to be granted. Thereafter, the said order came to be challenged before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 1134 of 2019 and vide order dated 11.02.2021 this Court has quashed order dated 31.10.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned Magistrate to consider it afresh. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 was again heard by the learned Magistrate. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the applicant vide impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the applicant vide impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dipal Patel for the applicant states that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. He further submitted that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Therefore, the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. He further submitted that the clear position therefore is that 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. 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 investigating 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. In support of his arguments learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina referred to and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (2) SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, 2016 (6) SCC 227. He therefore submitted that the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 is required to be allowed and the Police Inspector, Katargam Police Station, Surat be directed to register an FIR as per the written complaint dated 17.10.2014. No other authority is cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. R.C. Kodekar vehemently argued that what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other consideration are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine whether the information is credible etc. these are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex-facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR. In support of his contentions, learned APP Mr. Kodekar strongly emphasized on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 . He therefore submitted that the judicial process should not be an instrument of suppression or the needless harassment and it should not be initiated with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. He submitted that the present application may be rejected at the threshold. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State, considering the averments made in the application and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and perusing the documents produced on record, it is required to be noted that the police has filed the action taken report, wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant has filed the complaint as the document regarding entry no. 8219 in the year 1993 from Mamlatdar office has not been found in her name and her name has been deleted from the revenue record. The police report also suggests that Special Suit No. 388 of 2013 in this regard is pending before the Court and thus, the matter is sub-judice and pending before the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court come to the conclusion upon considering the statements recorded by the police that as per the statement of brothers of the applicant, it appears that name of the applicant was deleted way back in the year 1993 as per their family settlement on stamp paper as they were helping the applicant to settle her in her matrimonial house. In the case on hand also the complaint was lodged in the year 2014 for the entry mutated in the record way back in the year 1993 by the Government office. Therefore, without mentioning of clear mala-fide intentions of such grievous offence is not justified. In addition that too, the complainant has also filed complaint against the State Government, which is an erroneous, vague and improper for the alleged offences and therefore, the ingredients of wrong intention has to be specific against the allegations. 7. Before concluding the present application, it is important to refer to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu (Supra), which reads thus: “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 8. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “5. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 8. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “5. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 , that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the F.I.R. to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the Investigating Officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu’s case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 6. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” 9. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “115. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. 117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra) expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants. 119. Similarly, in Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), this Court has validated a preliminary inquiry prior to registering an FIR only on the ground that at the time the first information is received, the same does not disclose a cognizable offence. 120. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR. Conclusion/Directions: 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1 Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes. (b) Commercial offences. (c) Medical negligence cases. (d) Corruption cases. (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. 121. With the above directions, we dispose of the reference made to us. List all the matters before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits.” 10. It is well settled in the case of Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad vs. Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel and Others, 2003 Cri. L.J. 3984 : (2004) 1 JCJR 385 (Guj), wherein this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Buch, as His Lordship then was) has observed as under: “20. It is required to be considered that the two decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner were based on the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered by the two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court. 21. At the same time, the decision in Bani Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. AIR 1996 SC 2439 : 1996 Cri. L.J. 3419, is a decision rendered on 9-7-1996 by the three Honourable Judges of the Apex Court. It is well settled that when a judgment has been delivered by a Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court consisting of three Honourable Judges, then the said judgment will prevail over the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered by two Honourable of the said Court. In that view of the matter, the decision rendered in Bani Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1996 SC 2439 , will be required to be followed by this Court, and I respectfully follow the same. 22. When Advocates cite a decision of a Court, they are expected to verify that the judgment which they refer or rely upon, is a judgment which has not been overruled or dissented from. 22. When Advocates cite a decision of a Court, they are expected to verify that the judgment which they refer or rely upon, is a judgment which has not been overruled or dissented from. It is also expected from them to verify that there is no other judgment rendered by a larger Bench. It seems that this precaution does not appear to have been taken while arguing the matter before this Court in Amratbhai Leelabhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 Cri. L.J. 2765.” 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court that unless and until the civil court decides the question, no criminal action is required to be initiated against any person. In the case on hand, the complaint was filed in the year 2014 for the entry mutated in the year 1993 by the Government office against any person without mentioning averments of clear mala-fide intentions of such grievous offence is not justified. The Trial Court has observed that looking to the contents of the complaint of the applicant the alleged offence took place in way back in 1993, where a civil suit is pending to give an adjudication over the same. It also observed that from the complainant’s dispute, which is of civil nature and does not attracting the ingredients of sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(b) of Indian Penal Code. It is also observed that judicial process should not be an instrument of suppression or the needless harassment and it should not be initiated with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. In criminal court the allegation made in the complaint have to be established independently notwithstanding adjudication by a civil court but here complainant not brought clear documents. The registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and nor preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence and but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 12. In that view of the matter, present Criminal Revision Application being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence and but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 12. In that view of the matter, present Criminal Revision Application being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 05.07.2021 passed by learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 is confirmed. Notice is discharged.