JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Judicial 2 Magistrate First Class, Raipur in unregistered complaint case dated 24.09.2018, whereby an application moved by respondent No.1 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and direction has been issued to Police Station Civil Line, Raipur to register an F.I.R. and to submit final report. The petitioners have sought following relief(s) in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to effect and operation of the order sheet of the unregistered criminal case of 2017 of the court of Shir Sumit Kumar Soni, Judicial Magistrate Class I Raipur (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Cost of the petition. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 01.03.2017 making allegation that Flat No. 502, Khushi Towers Amlidih, Raipur was sold to him by the petitioner on 22.04.2013, but earlier it was sold to Prabha Bag and Ashish Thakur vide sale-deed executed on 27.05.2011 and 29.08.2011 respectively. He would further submit that search report was also forged one. Respondent No. 1 made complaint before the Station House Officer under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and when no action was taken, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 01.03.2017 respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class and a report was called from the concerned police. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Court and evidence of respondent No.1 was recorded on 12.10.2017. On 24.05.2018 Court passed the order for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners. He would submit that affidavit was not filed alongwith complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which is mandatory according to the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. itself and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 . 4. He would submit that affidavit was not filed alongwith complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which is mandatory according to the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. itself and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that it was not an inquiry under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class proceed according to the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. They would further submit that the court below recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter passed an order for registration of F.I.R. They would further submit that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. From record, it is crystal clear that affidavit was not filed by respondent No.1 alongwith application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The proceedings of the learned trial Court would show that on 01.03.2017 complaint case was filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and on 12.07.2017 the statement of the complainant was recorded. On 14.12.2017 complaint closed his evidence and thereafter case was 4 posted for arguments on registration of the complaint case. On 24.05.2018, the learned trial Court after considering the entire material and evidence of the complainant passed on order for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner and directed the police to file final report also. 7. In the matter of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with provisions of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. held that application must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant. In paras 30 & 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156 (3) CrPC 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. 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 the 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 Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) while filing a petition under Section 156 (3). Both the aspects 5 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 application under Section 156 (3) be supported by an affidavit is 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 vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 8. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, though respondent No.1 has moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, but the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence on a complaint, the approach of the learned trial Court was entirely different from the provisions of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The Chapter XV, which contains Section 202 of Cr.P.C. deals with the provisions relating to the steps which a Magistrate has to adopt while and after taking cognizance of any offence on a complaint, whereas Section 156 of Cr.P.C. falling within Chapter XII deals with the powers of the police 6 officers to investigate cognizable offences. The Investigation envisaged in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is entirely different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 of Cr.P.C. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. 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. (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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. and Another, (2001) 2 SCC 628 in paras- 7, 8 & 10 held as under:- “7. In our opinion, the aforesaid direction given by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 3 Rec Cri R 137 is contrary to law and cannot be approved. Chapter XII of the Code contains provisions relating to “information to the police and their powers to investigate”, whereas Chapter XV, which contains Section 202, deals with provisions relating to the steps which a Magistrate has to adopt while and after taking cognizance of any offence on a complaint. Chapter XII of the Code contains provisions relating to “information to the police and their powers to investigate”, whereas Chapter XV, which contains Section 202, deals with provisions relating to the steps which a Magistrate has to adopt while and after taking cognizance of any offence on a complaint. Provisions of the above two chapters deal with two different facets 7 altogether, though there could be a common factor, i.e. complaint filed by a person. Section 156, falling within Chapter XII, deals with powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences. True, Section 202 which falls under Chapter XV, also refers to the power of a Magistrate to “direct an investigation by a police officer”. But the investigation envisaged in Section 202 in different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 of the Code. Section 156 of the Code reads thus: “156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.– (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.” 8. The investigation referred to therein is the same investigation, the various steps to be adopted for it have been elaborated in Chapter XII of the Code. Such investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer in charge of a police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation started thereafter can end up only with the report filed by the police as indicated in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. But that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156 (3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. But that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156 (3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code. But the significant point to be noticed is, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence. 10. The position is thus clear. 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 complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Chand Jain (supra) has categorically held that any Judicial Magistrate, before 9 taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and if he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the learned trial Court entered into Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, there was no requirement of affidavit as envisaged under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the learned trial Court entered into Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, there was no requirement of affidavit as envisaged under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).