JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 12 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 725/2022 rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The undisputed facts are as below: The revisionist/appellant moved an application against 11 named including the in-charge S.O. Police Station Mahrauni and two unknown under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that they came on a Safari to his house when they had gone to sleep after celebrating the birthday of his son Ankur; they surrounded the house and before the complainant could understand anything, he saw that his daughter in-law Seema has been trying to strangulate her husband Ankur; she snatched golden chain and diamond ring from his person and physically assaulted him causing injuries; when the complainant's wife Meera Devi and daughter Bharti protested to her, she called the police from Police Station Mahrauni; the police of the local police station took away his son; next day at about 11 a.m. in the morning all the accused persons again intruded in his house, broke open the lock of his almirah and removed valuable and cash; they physically assaulted his family members; it is specifically stated in the application that 2 days thereafter on 20.09.2022, when he was sitting on his shop as usual, the in-charge of Police Station-Rajesh Kumar Dubey threatened him and abused him using caste driven words. 4. The only contention of the appellant is that there were 2 unknown person who cannot be identified unless the matter is investigated by the police, therefore the order passed by the learned trial court directing the registration of complaint case is not sustainable. 5. The contention is opposed by the other side arguing that the appellant cannot insist upon a particular relief from the court; if the allegations as contained in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are gone through, there are enough of indicators to demonstrate that whole story is false and concocted; it was not even worth grant of relief of registration as complaint, it should have been out-rightly dismissed. 6. 6. I went through all the material on record. The learned trial Judge found it fit to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint. In my view it was perfectly under his discretionary power to treat it as complaint instead of directing for registration of FIR. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order impugned. Therefore, this criminal appeal is dismissed.