ORDER : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.11.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, having been filed by the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), came to be dismissed, complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, praying therein to quash and set-aside the aforesaid impugned order and direct the learned court below to send the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the complainant was living with her Bua (spinster) at village Garkhal in a two storeyed house having three sets. Apart from her Bua, two tenants were also living in the building. Since after the death of her Bua, complainant started living permanently in the house of her Bua at village Garkhal, cousin of her late Bua namely Lalit Mohan objected to the same and made all out efforts to throw her out from the building. Since complainant was constantly harassed and threatened by the relatives of her late Bua, she filed a written complaint to the police at Garkhal on 6.10.2021, but the lady police official of the police post did not take the complaint and only provided her telephone number for assistance. On 8.10.2021, cousin of her late Bua namely Sh. Lalit Mohan alias Montu came to the house alongwith police official namely Sandeep and Montu started arguing with the complainant. Being terrified by the threats of Montu, complainant reported the matter to the police on 9.10.2021 in writing, which was again not accepted by the police and allegedly official namely Sandeep threatened her that he would arrest the complainant and frame a case under several sections. On the same day, complainant visited the police post and submitted a written complaint of her being threatened by person namely Lalit Mohan alias Montu. However, when she came back to her Bua’s house person namely Montu alongwith several male and female persons in furtherance of their common intention entered the house unauthorizedly and gave beatings to the complainant with hand, fist and danda etc. Allegedly, above persons also snatched purse and jewellary of the complainant and also threatened her that they would strip her naked, kill her and burn her alive. Allegedly, above persons also snatched purse and jewellary of the complainant and also threatened her that they would strip her naked, kill her and burn her alive. Complainant also alleged that while she was confined in the house, constable Sandeep informed the brother-in-law to rescue her as she was being beaten by her relatives. Though, FIR came to be lodged on the complaint of the complainant, but since police did not incorporate the penal sections like 120-B, 342, 354, 394 and 452 of IPC in the FIR against the accused named in the complaint, complainant filed complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.(Annexure P-2). In the aforesaid complaint/application, complainant besides giving complete details with regard to alleged incident as well as names of accused, who constantly harassed and threatened her, requested the Court to order for fresh investigation in the case by some senior police official. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. having taken cognizance of the complaint called for the report of SHO Kasauli, who reported to the Court below that FIR No.60/2021, dated 10.10.2021, under Sections 448, 148, 509, 323, 427, 506 read with Section 149 and 147 of IPC stands registered at police Station Kasauli. SHO, Kasauli also informed the Court below that at present Dy. S.P., Parwanoo namely Sh. Yogesh Rolta is conducting the investigation in the case and further action shall follow as per law according to the facts of the case. 4. Complainant filed objections to the aforesaid status report filed by the SHO, Kasauli, wherein she again reiterated that investigation is not being conducted in fair and transparent manner, rather efforts are being made by the police to save the police official, who alongwith cousin of her late Bua not only extended threats to her but also gave beatings. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli on the basis of aforesaid reports submitted by the SHO, Kasauli, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid background, complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order dismissing the application having been filed by the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Since at the time of issuance of notice in the case at hand, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner-complainant while making this Court to peruse the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 vehemently argued that at no point of time complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C ever came to be forwarded to the Investigating Officer for investigation by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P, this Court vide order dated 6.1.2022 directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parwanoo to file an affidavit, specifically stating therein action/inquiry taken/conducted by him pursuant to the allegations leveled by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to aforesaid direction, Deputy Superintendent of Police., Parwanoo has filed his compliance affidavit, which is available at page 79 of the paper book, perusal whereof reveals that no investigation ever came to be conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police on the complaint of the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, rather complaint having been filed by the complainant came to be dismissed solely on the ground that FIR No.60 of 2021 already stands registered against the persons named in the complaint lodged at first instance by the complainant before the police Station, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. 7. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the case at hand and has been further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once complainant being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the police on her complaint had approached competent court of law under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for further investigation, court below ought to have forwarded the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the investigating Officer for further investigation, but in the case at hand, impugned order itself reveals that learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli though called for the report of the SHO after having received the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C from the complainant, but she after having been made aware of the facts that FIR already stands registered, dismissed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in hot haste manner. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner contended that learned Court below failed to take note of the fact that complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant after lodging of the FIR No.60/2021, meaning thereby she had no grouse as far as lodging of the FIR is concerned, rather her specific grouse was that the allegation levelled by her while making complaint to police Station, Kasauli have been not investigated properly. While making this court to peruse the complaint lodged by the complainant at first instance before the SHO, Mr. Thakur, contended that serious allegations were levelled against the police official, who in connivance with cousin of late Bua of complainant not only extended threats to the complainant, but also gave beatings. Lastly, Mr. Thakur argued that bare perusal of complaint under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C itself reveals that had Investigating Officer taken cognizance of the complaint made by the complainant, he would have booked the accused named in the complaint under Sections 120-B, 342, 354, 394 and 452 of IPC and as such, Court below ought not have straightway dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C on the basis of report submitted by the SHO, Kasauli,, rather it ought to have directed the investigating Officer to conduct the investigation on the basis of allegations levelled in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 10. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned in the instant proceedings because bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that police has acted in fair manner. Mr. Bhatnagar, further submitted that once police having taken note of complaint lodged by the complainant at first instance at police Station, Kasauli, have investigated the matter, there was no occasion, if any, for the Court to order for fresh investigation as was prayed in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. having been filed by the complainant. Mr. Mr. Bhatnagar, further submitted that once police having taken note of complaint lodged by the complainant at first instance at police Station, Kasauli, have investigated the matter, there was no occasion, if any, for the Court to order for fresh investigation as was prayed in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. having been filed by the complainant. Mr. Bhatnagar, further argued that bare perusal of impugned order itself reveals that all the allegations as have been levelled in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were duly investigated by the Investigating Officer and as such, there is no occasion for this Court to accede to the request made at this juncture for directing the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter fresh. 11. There cannot be any quarrel with the fact that at first instance complaint lodged the complainant at police Station, Kasauli alleging therein that cousin of her late Bua namely Sh. Lalit Mohan alongwith police official HC Sandeep unauthorizedly entered her house and gave her beatings and also snatched some valuable items of her. Apart from above, complainant also alleged that lady constable available in the police did not lodge her report and only provided her telephone number for assistance. Though, police having taken note of the afore complaint, lodged the FIR No.60 of 2021 dated 10.10.2021 against some persons under Sections 448, 147, 148, 149, 509, 323, 427, 506 of IPC at police Station, Kasauli, but no action ever came to be taken against the police official HC Sandeep and one another person Dhananjay and as such, complainant was compelled to institute complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. If the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that the complainant levelled serious allegations against the police official with regard to their unauthorized entry in the house of the complainant and thereafter taking forcible possession of the house without there being any authority of law. 12. 12. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. though called for the report of the SHO but without going into the correctness of the same vis-à-vis specific allegation levelled in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, proceeded to close the matter, whereas very purpose of filing complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on behalf of the complainant was to ensure proper and fair investigation. Since FIR on the complaint filed by the complainant stood already lodged prior to filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, there could not be any grouse of the petitioner on that account, rather her specific case before the Magistrate was that police has not acted in a fair and transparent manner and as such, case is required to be investigated afresh. 13. By now it is well settled that if a person has grievance that proper investigation has not been done on his/her complaint and FIR is being not registered against the accused, he/she can approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C 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. However, in the case at hand, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli taking note of the report filed by the SHO that FIR already stands registered, closed the proceedings initiated at the behest of the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereas she with a view to ascertain the correctness of the allegation levelled by the complainant in her complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C ought to have forwarded the copy of the complaint to the Investigating Officer for further investigation. 14. Interestingly, in the case at hand complainant filed objections to the status report filed by the police, wherein she again reiterated that investigation has been not conducted in fair manner and efforts are being made by the police to save police official but yet learned Court below did not make any effort to ensure further investigation in the matter, so that no injustice was caused to the complainant. Careful perusal of provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C clearly reveals that the same provide for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, she/he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. 15. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled T.C. Thangaraj Vs. V. Engammal and others (2011) 12 SCC 328 , wherein it has been held as under:- “12. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (see Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 ).” 16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 , wherein it has been observed as under: “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) CrPC 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. 12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627 this Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11) “11. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627 this Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11) “11. 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. 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 complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.” 13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641 : JT (2007) 10 SC 585 (JT vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC. 14. Section 156(3) states: “156. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.” The words “as abovementioned” obviously refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the police station. 15. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC. 14. Section 156(3) states: “156. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.” The words “as abovementioned” obviously refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the police station. 15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. 16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554 (SCC : AIR para 19). 17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. 18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is mpliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.” 17. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.” 17. Reliance is also placed upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Anandwardhan and another versus Pandurang and others, Criminal Appeal No.174-175 of 2005, Dated 24.01.2005, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. We do not wish to make any comments about the investigation of the case or the result of the investigation. The law provides that if the police fails to investigate a case arising from a first information report lodged before it disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, it is open to the informant/complainant to move the Magistrate concerned for appropriate order under section 156 Cr.P.C, or may file a complaint and obtained appropriate orders from him for issuance of process against the accused for trial. If the grievance of the respondent was that the police was not properly investigating his case, or that the report made by the police was wrong or based on no investigation whatsoever, it was open to him to move the Magistrate concerned. Having failed to do so, he found the novel device of moving the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such a writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court when remedy is provided to the aggrieved party under the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the procedure established by law.” 18. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that while considering the prayer, if any, made under S.156(3) Cr.P.C, court is not only to act upon the report submitted by the Police in those proceedings, rather, court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the complaint, can either direct lodging of FIR or fresh investigation in the matter. As has been observed herein above, very purpose of provision of S.156 (3) Cr.P.C is to ensure check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and, as and when, Magistrate finds that the Police have done their duty in accordance with law, it can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly. 19. As has been observed herein above, very purpose of provision of S.156 (3) Cr.P.C is to ensure check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and, as and when, Magistrate finds that the Police have done their duty in accordance with law, it can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly. 19. In the case at hand, if allegation levelled in the complaint under S.156 (3) Cr.P.C are perused in their entirety, they compel this court to conclude that the Police have not acted in a fair and transparent manner, rather, efforts have been made to hush up the matter, especially against the police officials. Though, Deputy Superintendent of Police Parwanoo has been appointed as Investigating Officer but he has only investigated the matter only on the basis of initial complaint lodged at police Station. Kasauli. 20. Leaving everything aside, affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parwanoo in terms of order dated 6.1.2022, clearly reveals that he had no occasion, if any, to investigate the allegations as contained in the complaint under S.156 (3) Cr.P.C, filed by the complainant and as such, impugned order passed by Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. Once the Magistrate had received the complaint under S.156 (3) Cr.P.C, containing serious allegations against the police official, he /she with a view to ascertain the correctness of the allegations ought to have forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation. After receipt of the report Magistrate could either close the proceedings on the pretext that FIR vis-à-vis allegations contained in the complaint already stands registered or she could order for registration of case against the accused named in the complaint under appropriate provisions of law. However, in the instant case Magistrate without making an effort to ascertain the correctness of the allegations contained in the complaint, which otherwise could be ascertained by referring the same to the Investigating Officer proceeded to close the proceedings on the pretext that FIR already stands registered. 21. However, in the instant case Magistrate without making an effort to ascertain the correctness of the allegations contained in the complaint, which otherwise could be ascertained by referring the same to the Investigating Officer proceeded to close the proceedings on the pretext that FIR already stands registered. 21. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well law taken into consideration, the present petition is allowed and order dated 25.11.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., is quashed and set aside with a direction to learned court below to consider and decide complaint filed under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C on behalf of the complainant, afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 22. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before learned Court below on 23.4.2022, enabling it to do the needful well within the stipulated time. 23. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.