JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal U/s 14(A)-1 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi arising out of Misc. Case No. 721 of 2022 U/s 156(3) CrPC by which the application of the appellant was rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial court did not consider the statement of the witnesses available on record. Learned trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence available on record ignoring the material of the case. Hence, the impugned order is erroneous and suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be set aside. 4. At the very outset, learned AGA submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has equally efficacious remedy available with him to file complaint on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. The injuries are simple in nature. It is also submitted that the report was called for by the magistrate on the application U/s 156(3) CrPC and on inquiry, the incident was found false. Hence the application U/s 156(3) CrPC has been rightly rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Briefly the contents of the FIR are that the complainant belong to the scheduled caste and opposite party is Brahmin by caste. The son of the informant namely, Anoop Kumar was studying in Class VII in Shail Kumari Bateshwar Dayal Public Inter College, Sahijna, Hardoi. Opposite party no.2, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi has beaten the son of the informant cruelly and traumatised him. Therefore his son refused to go to school. When the son of the informant again attended to school on 21.9.2022, he was again beaten by fist, kicks and danda. Thereafter his son fell ill and he became incapable of movement and performing his normal life. He was referred to King George Medical College, Lucknow by district hospital where his son expired after four days. On the basis of the application moved U/s 156(3) CrPC, a report was called from the police station concerned. As per report sent by the police station concerned, the son of the informant did not attend the school on 20.9.2022. He was referred to King George Medical College, Lucknow by district hospital where his son expired after four days. On the basis of the application moved U/s 156(3) CrPC, a report was called from the police station concerned. As per report sent by the police station concerned, the son of the informant did not attend the school on 20.9.2022. The injured was medically examined in Balrampur Hospital at Lucknow on 19.10.2022 wherein three injuries of simple nature were found. The injured was suffering from kidney disease, therefore he was advised for dialysis and during his treatment, he died on 28.10.2022. According to the post mortem report, the cause of death was shown septicemia due to illness. As per medical report, the cause of death is septicemia and shock. The appellant had stated in application that he applied for post mortem of his son by Panel, but the same is not disposed off. 6. According to the facts and circumstances of the application U/s 156(3) CrPC, the date of incident is shown as 20.9.2022 and 21.9.2022. However, as per primary inquiry conducted by the police station, the injured was medically examined in KGMC, Lucknow on 19.10.2022 and three minor injuries were found on his body which was found 2-4 days prior to the medical examination. Thereafter, the injured was medically treated in Rajdhani Hospital, Dubagga Road, Lucknow where he was advised for dialysis and during the course of treatment, the injured expired. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that police report is not reliable to the intent that the injured did not attend the school on 20.9.2022. However, as per Annxure-4 annexed with the appeal, he was given home work in his diary. Prima facie, it appears that the injured attended the school on 20.9.2022 and 21.9.2022 both. 8. Section 156 CrPC reads as under: "156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned." 9. A magistrate may use his authority U/s 156(3) CrPC on pre and post cognizance. The power may include the police officers incharge on recording the case and concluding an investigation. Anyone can begin the legal procedure by reporting a cognizable offence to the police. The police are required by law to open an investigation and record a case after receiving such information. 10. According to the section 154(1) of the CrPC, any information relating to the commission of cognizable offence provided to an in-charge of the police station whether verbally or in writing must be reduced to writing and signed by them. FIR is an essential document in our nations criminal justice system. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already made it clear that the police authorities must register an FIR upon receiving complaint in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others. The police authorities are required to carry out such application moved U/s 156(3) CrPC. The magistrate is not merely a simple office just to register the case without applying his judicial mind. He must believe that there is justification for the police to register the case and conduct an investigation. The police as well as magistrate is permitted to look into the offence without FIR whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Before passing an order for registering the FIR, the court has to see at the very outset whether a cognizable offence is made out. 12. The police as well as magistrate is permitted to look into the offence without FIR whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Before passing an order for registering the FIR, the court has to see at the very outset whether a cognizable offence is made out. 12. From the perusal of the application U/s 156(3) CrPC, however, it is said that the injured was beaten badly by opposite party no.2, but the medico legal examination available on record reveals that the three injuries were found on the body of the injured, which are as follows: "(i) Contusion swelling of 3.0 cmx2.0 cm on right side of the head 3 cm above from the right ear; (ii) Contusion of 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm on left side of lower abdomen 1 cm away from umbilicus; (iii) Scabbed abrasion 3cm x 2cm on left side of buttock." 13. All the injuries are simple in nature. It does not disclose any cognizable offence in the Indian Penal Code. So far as the provisions of SC/ST Act are concerned, it is to be read in the light of substantive offence. 14. In Hari Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) SCC, it was decided that the complainant may move a complaint before the magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance, if the police fails to investigate the incident. The law does not allow the magistrate to order an investigation U/s 156(3) CrPC, magistrate is required to enquiry in the complaint as provided in Chapter XIV of the Code before taking cognizance U/s 190, 200 and 204 CrPC. During the pre-cognizance phase, if a person is aggrieved that his FIR is not registered U/s 154 CrPC and a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station U/s 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not find any satisfactory result in the same, the FIR is not registered or even after it registering the FIR, proper investigation is not made, it is open for aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before magistrate. If such application is filed, then magistrate may order for registration of FIR and proper investigation. If such application is filed, then magistrate may order for registration of FIR and proper investigation. In Mohd Yousuf vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr 2006 (1) SCC 10 and Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi 2007 (10) SCC 585, the Hon'ble Apex Court took similar view. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the Sakiri Vasu ruling in case of M. Subramaniam and Others v. S. Janaki and Others (2020) SCC, citing an earlier decision in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others (2010) SCC. 16. The remedy for aggrieved party is to approach the concerned Magistrate U/s 156(3) CrPC, if they have grievance with the police have not registered the FIR U/s 154 of the CrPC and envisages that if the police refused to register the FIR and after registering the FIR did not conduct the investigation properly, the informant has a right to move an application before the S.P.. when the victim requested U/s 156(3) CrPC, they must follow all the steps provided in Section 154(1) and 154(2) of the CrPC. 17. From the above discussion, it is evident that no cognizance offence is made out on the basis of the contents disclosed in application moved U/s 156(3) CrPC and medical report. The contents regarding SC/ST Act are to be read in the light of substantive offence. The informant has equally efficacious remedy to file a complaint before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. The Supreme Court discussed the above mentioned provisions of law in its judgements very well. Hence, the order of the trial court suffers with no illegality, irregularity or perversity. To file an appeal without adopting due procedure is the misuse of process of law. 18. In the light of the above discussions, the appeal is hereby dismissed.