ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 04.10.2023 in CF.No.900 of 2023 passed by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act, Ananthapuramu. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant herein filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in respect of offences under Sections 354, 307, 166, 506, 509, 420, 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the SHO, Anantapuramu IV Town Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and directed to investigate and submit report by 03.11.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed contending that the defacto complainant filed the complaint when the police officials were on bandobast duty in view of distribution of house site pattas to the poor and that at that time the defacto complainant and other family members came to the spot contenting that the land in Sy.No.253/1A of Lathavaram Village, Uravakonda Mandal belongs to them and threw the chairs and benches, tore the flexies and abused the government officials in filthy language, consequent to which a complaint against the defacto complainant and her family members was registered. On 30.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC and further revenue officials also filed complaint against the defacto complainant and her family members vide FIR.No.412 of 2020, dated 30.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners further stated that in respect of land in Sy.No.253/1 of Lathavaram, Uravakonda Mandal, one Ananda Sakhi filed a complaint against the persons who are standing there to receive the pattas and quarreled with the defacto complainant’s family members and FIR.No.413/2020, dated 31.12.2020 was registered under Sections 323, 506,355 r/w 34 IPC, 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. In view of all these complaints against the defacto complainant and her family members police have not taken any action and that the defacto complainant is abusing process of law by filing not only this case, but several other similar cases, list of which is as follows:- Sl.No. Name of the PS Cr.No.& Sec of Law Name of accused Present stage 1 Ananthapuramu Rural PS 13/2012 U/s 417, 420 IPC Gandla Chandra Sekhar, S/o Macherlapp Convicted U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C on 27.07.2016 for a period of 2 years (SI) and file Rs.10000/- vide CC.No.429/ 2013, by Excise court. 2 B.K.Samudram PS 195/2012 U/s 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1.G.Chandra Sekhar S/o Macherlappa 2. Ramadevi, 3. Geetha, 4.Suri, 5. Ademma W/o Macherlappa 6. Macharlappa Convicted U/s 235(2) vide SC No.19/2013 for a period of 1 year for SI, and also fine Rs.200/- by SC/ST court on 11.8.2014. 3 Ananthapuramu 4th Town PS 102/2016 U/s 506 IPC & Sec 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1. Suri 2. Macherlappa Acquittal 4 Ananthapuramu 4th Town PS 59/2017 U/s 354(D), 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1.G.Chandra Sekhar, S/o Macherlappa 2. G.Macharlappa Pending Trial 5 Ananthapuramu Rural PS. Transferred to ATP IV Town PS. 234/2017 U/s 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC 1. Ademma W/o Macherlappa 2. Macharlappa Case was referred as false vide C.No.423/R ef/SDPOA/2021 Dated 23.7.2021 6 Ananthapuramu IV Town PS Cr.No.228/2017 U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC 1. Talari Anasuya 2. Talari Sankar Compromised in LokAdalath. 7 Ananthapuramu Rural PS 253/2017 U/s 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1. Macharlappa S/o Macharlappa 2. Ademma, W/o Macharlappa 3. Surya Narayana 4. Chandra Sekhar Pending vide Spl SC.No.94/2 018. 8 Ananthapuramu III Town PS 131/2018 U/s 354, 509 IPC 1. Sathi Reddy, 2. Dadu and another Case was referred as false. 7 Ananthapuramu Rural PS 253/2017 U/s 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1. Macharlappa S/o Macharlappa 2. Ademma, W/o Macharlappa 3. Surya Narayana 4. Chandra Sekhar Pending vide Spl SC.No.94/2 018. 8 Ananthapuramu III Town PS 131/2018 U/s 354, 509 IPC 1. Sathi Reddy, 2. Dadu and another Case was referred as false. 9 Ananthapuramu II Town PS 82/2019 U/s 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act Gandla Chandra Sekhar S/o Macherlappa and 3 others Pending for trial 10 Ananthapuramu II Town PS 192/2019 U/s 354, IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act D.Narayana Case referred as false 11 Uravakonda PS 23/2020 U/s 506 IPC Sake Manohar Sake Prakash 12 Uravakonda PS 122/2020 U/s 143, 324, 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC Ramu and 08 others Charge sheet filed 13 Uravakonda PS 152/2020 U/s 143, 448, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC & & Sec3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Ramu and 08 others Charge sheet filed 14 Uravakonda PS 362/2020 U/s 190, 189,187,203, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1. Dharani babu SI of Police, 2. Khasim Sab, SDPO, Guntakal Case referred as false 15 Uravakonda PS 413/2020 U/s 303, 506, 355 r/w & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Kuruba Govind & 04 othes UI 16 Ananthapuramu II Town PS 78/2021 U/s 354, 355, 506, 355 r/w 34 IPC and & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act RDO, Ananthapuramu Case referred as false 17 Ananthapuramu II Town PS 125/2022 U/s 195-A, 354, 355, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3(1)(w), & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Gandla Chandrasekhar and 3 others Charge sheet filed 18 Ananthapuramu II Town PS Cr.No.253/2022 U/s 354, 307, 166, 355, 506, 509 IPC and Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C of Ananthapuram II Town PS P.Jakir Hussain Khan, Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu II Town PS Referred as false case 19 Ananthapuramu III Town PS Cr.No.50/2023 U/s 306, 354, 166, 355, 506, 509 IPC and Sec & Sec3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Shaik Sharfuddi, DSP and another Case is being investigating by the D.S.P. SC/ST Cell ATP. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 at paras 30 and 31 held as follows: “30. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 at paras 30 and 31 held as follows: “30. 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. 31. 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. 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.” 5. It is observed that the learned Magistrate has not followed the above decision. In the said case, the Supreme Court refered to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 . Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641 . CREF Finance Ltd. vs. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd, (2005) 7 SCC 467 and Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2007 decided on 16.03.2015 at paras 22 and 25 respectively held as follows: “The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed [ (2008) 5 SCC 668 ] 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 CrPC, 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) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation. 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. 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. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the precognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the precognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). 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. The 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.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this High Court also, in many other similar cases, quashed the order passed by Magistrate under 156(3) Cr.P.C which is not in cognizance with the above directions. 7. Inspite of service of notice to the defacto complainant, none appeared. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that even for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, if the case in complaint is against any action of a public servant done while discharging duties, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required and relied on the decision of Kerala High Court OP (Crl.).No.98 of 2018 at paras 16, 17(i) and 17(ii) held as follows: “16.Thereafter, after placing reliance on State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath Singh [ (2009) 6 SCC 372 ] and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh [(2012) 3 SC 64], it has been held that, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. without previous sanction from the competent authority. 17(i). In regard to Crl.M.C No.662/18, further investigation into the crime shall be conducted after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. Other contentions raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the learned Single Judge, for which the matter is remitted back for further hearing. Registry shall place the matter before the learned Single Judge. 17(ii) WP(C) No.4389/2014:- This is a case where the investigation was conducted without obtaining sanction. Other contentions raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the learned Single Judge, for which the matter is remitted back for further hearing. Registry shall place the matter before the learned Single Judge. 17(ii) WP(C) No.4389/2014:- This is a case where the investigation was conducted without obtaining sanction. Since law in this regard is yet to be settled in Manjju Surana (Supra), it is only appropriate that the prosecuting agency may proceed with further investigation/prosecution after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Magistrate mechanically forwarded the case for investigation without properly applying mind and passed a cryptic order as follows: “Complainant present. Heard complainant. Perused the records, sworn statement and connected papers. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused. Hence the complaint is forwarded to Station House Office, Anantapuramu IV Town Police Station U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C with a direction register and investigate the case and submit report by 03.11.2023.” 9. In view of the above proposition of law, order passed by the learned Magistrate in the present case suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed. However, it is open for the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order as per law. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.