JUDGMENT Raj Beer Singh, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.11.2019, passed by the learned C. J. M., Maharajganj in Misc. Case No. 1411/2019, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. pertaining to Case Crime No. 263 of 2017, P. S.-Nautanwa, district-Maharajganj, whereby application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. seeking further investigation has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A. G. A. for the State and learned Dy. S. G. for C. B. I. and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned order is against the facts and law and thus, is liable to be set aside. Earlier the revisionist had approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 21939 of 2019 seeking fair investigation in Case Crime No. 363 of 2017 under Sections-302, 304 I. P C. and by order dated 26.9.2019 the Division Bench of this court has disposed of the said writ petition by observing that in view of the law laid down in case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U. P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others 2016) 6 SCC 277, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the concerned magistrate in respect of his grievances. Thereafter revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Court of C. J. M., Maharajganj, wherein, inter alia it was alleged that on 2.7.2017, the informant Barkat Ali has lodged first information report alleging that his son, Kayamuddin was called by some un-known persons and he was assaulted by them and thereafter he was thrown at railway track in order to show that he has committed suicide. After investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet against the revisionist and two others and thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Learned counsel further submitted that the police did not conduct the investigation properly and that no public person was made witness of the alleged recovery of weapon of offence nor the recovered weapon was sent to the F. S. L. Similarly, relevant persons were not examined during investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the police did not conduct the investigation properly and that no public person was made witness of the alleged recovery of weapon of offence nor the recovered weapon was sent to the F. S. L. Similarly, relevant persons were not examined during investigation. During investigation it was also revealed that deceased Kayamuddin used to talk with one girl namely, Sangeeta but the Call Detail Record (C. D. R.) of the concerned mobile phones were not obtained. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that deceased was murdered by co-accused Shriram Prajapati. The revisionist was made accused without proper investigation and he was charge-sheeted along with two co-accused persons. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the police did not conduct investigation properly and thus a thorough and fair investigation is required to be conducted by the C. B. I. It was submitted that the impugned order is against law and in violation of the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by this Court and thus, liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A. G. A. has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. After thorough investigation, the revisionist and co-accused were found involved in the incident and thus, chargsheet was submitted after collecting evidence and that now the case is pending before the concerned Sessions Court for evidence and at this stage no further investigation is required in the matter. 5. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Dy. S. G. along with Sri Sanjay Kuamr Yadav, learned counsel for C. B. I., submitted that in view of the facts of the matter, no investigation is required by the C. B. I., particularly, at this stage when the case is already pending before the Sessions Court at the stage of evidence. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Perusal of record shows that on 02.07.2017 one Barkat Ali (respondent No. 8) has lodged first information report under section 304 IPC against unknown persons alleging that on 02.07.2017 at 09.00 PM his son Kayamuddin has gone to the shop of one Inderjit but he did not return. It was alleged that some unknown boys have assaulted his son and in order to show the incident a case of suicide, his dead body was thrown on the railway track. It was alleged that some unknown boys have assaulted his son and in order to show the incident a case of suicide, his dead body was thrown on the railway track. When the revisionist reached at the spot, his son has already died. After investigation, the police have charge-sheeted one Shriram Prajapati, Ramhit Rajbhar and Santosh Prajapati (revisionist) for offence under section 302 IPC. The revisionist / accused has filed a writ petition before this court (Crl Misc W.P. No. 21939/2019) for fair investigation, which was disposed off by this court vide order dated 26.09.2019, with observation that the petitioner / revisionist may approach the concerned magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC. Thereafter, the revisionist filed an application under section 156(3) CrPC before the CJM, Maharajganj. It was alleged by the revisionist that investigation was not conducted properly. The first information regarding incident was given by railway employee Triyugi Chaudhary but he has not been examined during investigation and that as per statement of the informant, the deceased was attacked by Shriram Prajapati with iron rod and 'khanti', which is inconsistent with the injuries sustained by the deceased. It was further alleged that the revisionist has been made accused merely on the basis of statement of the son of informant, which is not supported by any other evidence and thus, in view of all these facts, further investigation may be conducted by some competent police officer but the application of the revisionist seeking further investigation was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2019, which is being impugned in the present criminal revision. 8. The legal position regarding exercise of powers under section 156(3) CrPC is well settled. In view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Lal v. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739, it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The Magistrate / Court is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by applicant had any substance or not. However, in the instant matter, the prayer of the revisionist before the court below was of further investigation of the matter. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The Magistrate / Court is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by applicant had any substance or not. However, in the instant matter, the prayer of the revisionist before the court below was of further investigation of the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (supra), following its earlier decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 , held as follows: "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 9. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 9. Thus, in the above case the Apex Court held that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was also observed that if the FIR is already registered, the Magistrate can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. In the instant matter it is not in dispute that the FIR was already registered and when the revisionist has filed application the investigation was already complete and in fact the case was already committed to the court of session. Thus, no case for direction of fair or proper investigation was made out. 10. So far the question of further investigation is concerned, it is apparent from record that after investigation, the police have charge-sheeted accused Shriram Prajapati, Ramhit Rajbhar and Santosh Prajapati (revisionist) for offence under section 302 IPC. The case has been committed to the court of session and the charges have already been framed by the trial court and the case is pending at the stage of evidence. After perusing the record, it can not be said that the revisionist has been made accused without any evidence. It appears the revisionist is seeking further investigation regarding his defence version, which is not permissible, particularly at this stage, when the trial is pending at the stage of evidence. Merely because while deciding W.P. No. 21939/2019, this court has observed that the petitioner / revisionist may approach the concerned magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC, it does no mean that the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for further investigation. Merely because while deciding W.P. No. 21939/2019, this court has observed that the petitioner / revisionist may approach the concerned magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC, it does no mean that the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for further investigation. Considering entire facts of the matter, no further investigation by the police or by the Central Bureau of Investigation is warranted at instance of the accused/revisionist, particularly when the trial of the case is at the stage of evidence. 11. The revision lacks substance and accordingly the revision is dismissed.