JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gireesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Puneet Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of this instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 2128 of 2022 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Yogendra and Others) u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 without considering the evidence on record and without application of his mind. Since the impugned order has been passed against the weight of the evidence on record, it should be set-aside and learned Magistrate may be directed to pass order afresh on the application of the revisionist. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist has filed criminal revision on false and frivolous ground. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the revisionist’s application vide order dated 27.09.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard. Perused the entire evidence present on the revision. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, it has been averred that the revisionist’s daughter, Madhuri, was married to opposite party no. 2, Yogendra Singh s/o Phoolan Singh, resident of village- Bhura Bhartara, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, as per Hindu rites and rituals on 06.05.2017. It has also been averred that after marriage, the deceased and her husband were peacefully living a married life and one child, namely, Manavaya, was born out of their wedlock. It has also been averred that Madhuri, wife of opposite party no. 2, was suffering from asthma and for that, she was under treatment of doctor. During her treatment in the hospital, she died on 31.03.2022. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members informed about her death to the revisionist and other family members. In the cremation ceremony of Madhuri, revisionist and her family members were present. 2, was suffering from asthma and for that, she was under treatment of doctor. During her treatment in the hospital, she died on 31.03.2022. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members informed about her death to the revisionist and other family members. In the cremation ceremony of Madhuri, revisionist and her family members were present. It has also been averred that after the death of Madhuri, the revisionist pressurized the opposite parties to take his son, Manavaya, but the opposite party no. 2 and his family members agreed to purchase agricultural land in favour of Manavaya for securing his future. It has further been averred that agricultural land was purchased by opposite party no. 3, Phoolan Singh, father of Yogendra. 8. The applicant/revisionist, Smt. Kamlesh, has filed application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2022 alleging that her daughter, Madhuri, was married on 06.05.2017 to accused, Yogendra according to hindu rites and rituals. The applicant/revisionist has spent about Rs.8,00,000/- in the marriage of her daughter. The husband of revisionist’s daughter, Yogendra, her father-in-law, Phoolan Singh, mother-in-law, Smt. Guddi Devi and brother-in-law (devar), Vineet were not satisfied with the dowry and they were asking Madhuri a car from her father. Averment has made in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that after returning from her matrimonial home to her paternal home, applicant/revisionist’s daughter used to tell the applicant, her father and her sister, Sonia about her harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. She used to tell that they may cause her death in order to get a car. The applicant/revisionist’s daughter started doing job as a G.N.M. in Agra where her husband was also working. He used to often taunt her that she did not provide a car from her father while she was staying with her husband at Agra. Her father-in-law, Phoolan Singh, mother-in-law, Smt. Guddi Devi and brother-in-law (devar), Vineet, used to visit her house and secretly prepared plan to kill her but they could not succeed. Fifteen days before her murder, she had visited her paternal home and informed her mother and sister, Sonia that her in-laws could kill her anytime for a car. One Mahima, who was working as G.N.M. at Agra used to visit her daughter’s house and she started living with Yogendra and her daughter. Fifteen days before her murder, she had visited her paternal home and informed her mother and sister, Sonia that her in-laws could kill her anytime for a car. One Mahima, who was working as G.N.M. at Agra used to visit her daughter’s house and she started living with Yogendra and her daughter. On 21.03.2022 at 2:30 o’clock, her son-in-law, Yogendra informed the applicant on phone that Madhuri was not able to speak. Then the applicant with her husband, Pooran Singh and several other villagers reached Krishna Hospital, Agra at 4 p.m. Her daughter, Sonia, informed applicant’s husband that Madhuri had died. Yogendra, his parents, his brother Vineet and G.N.M. Mahima was also present there. The applicant/revisionist observed mark of injury on the person of Madhuri and swelling on her neck. The doctor asked for postmortem report and police was summoned but Yogendra and his relatives pressurized the police to get the postmortem of Madhuri done. They threatened the applicant/revisionist that if she tried to complain against them, she will be killed. Since persons on the side of applicant/revisionist were less in number, the accused forcibly carried her deceased daughter’s body and her son to their village. The applicant/revisionist submitted written report in the police station about the incident and made several other efforts for 2-4 days but the police did not register the criminal case and took no action. The applicant/revisionist also sent information to S.S.P., Firozabad, but no action was taken. 9. The applicant/revisionist submitted written report in the police station about the incident and made several other efforts for 2-4 days but the police did not register the criminal case and took no action. The applicant/revisionist also sent information to S.S.P., Firozabad, but no action was taken. 9. The trial court has given following reasons for rejecting the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/revisionist : ^^U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 21-07-22 dks {ks=kf/kdkjh fljlkxat ls ekeys dh tkap djk;h xbZ {ks=kf/kdkjh fljlkxat dh vk[;k i=koyh ij layXu gS muds }kjk ;g vk[;k nh xbZ gS fd ek/kqjh dh rch;r [kjkc jgrh Fkh vkSj mldk bykt py jgk Fkk e`rdk dk iksLVekVZe okfnuh mlds ?kjokyks dh lgefr ls ugh djk;k x;k D;ksfd mldh e`R;q chekjh ds pyrs gqbZ e`rdk dh e`R;q Jh d`".k gkWfLiVy esa mipkj ds nkSjku gqbZ FkhA e`rdk dk vfUre laLdkj nksuks i{kks dh lgefr ls gqvk Fkk ,oa ckn esa vkosfndk dh ekax ij foi{kh Qwyu flag }kjk fnukad 11-04-22 dks 2604 oxZ QhV dk IykV ekuo; mez 3 o"kZ ds uke fd;k Fkk ekax ds vuqlkj lajf{kdk deys'k dqekjh dks cuk;k x;k FkkA {ks=kf/kdkjh fljlkxat }kjk tks vk[;k izsf"kr dh xbZ gS ml vk[;k ij vkosfndk dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh vkifŸk nkf[ky ugh dh xbZ gSA^ 10. From the perusal of the reasons assigned by the trial court, it transpires that the death of the applicant/revisionist’s daughter had taken place on 21.03.2022 at 2.30 o'clock but the applicant/revisionist has submitted application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after a delay of about 3 months and no sufficient reasons have been assigned for the inordinate delay for submitting the revision petition. In the enquiry done by Circle Officer concerned, it was found that Madhuri, deceased daughter of the applicant/revisionist was suffering from illness and her medical treatment was going on. The family members of the applicant/revisionist did not insist on getting the postmortem of the deceased done, therefore, no postmortem of the deceased's body was conducted. The opposite party no. 3, deceased's father-in-law, Phoolan Singh on 11.04.2022 had transferred 2604 sq. ft. of land in favour of deceased's son, Manavaya, aged about 3 years. In the transfer deed, applicant/revisionist was shown as guardian of Manavaya. The applicant/revisionist did not file any objection against the report of the Circle Officer concerned. 11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph nos. 3, deceased's father-in-law, Phoolan Singh on 11.04.2022 had transferred 2604 sq. ft. of land in favour of deceased's son, Manavaya, aged about 3 years. In the transfer deed, applicant/revisionist was shown as guardian of Manavaya. The applicant/revisionist did not file any objection against the report of the Circle Officer concerned. 11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph nos. 4 and 7 of its judgment in Anjum Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 (3) ADJ 417 has held as follows : “4. …...The word 'may' occurring in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of utmost significance. It gives the magistrate a discretionary power to order or not for an investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed in the petition. This discretionary power ought to have been exercised only on reasons and not on arbitrariness. This discretionary power has been given to magistrates to enable them to deal adequately with both types of the petitions (i) the genuine petitions containing truthful allegations about the commission of the cognizable offence and (2) the petitions having baseless or false allegations. The increasing tendency of the people to file petitions on false allegations cannot be ignored. 7. In other cases the magistrate must apply his own mind and reason while dealing with the powers under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. The magistrate must always keep it in mind that the passing of an order for investigation in frivolous and vexatious petitions containing false allegations is an abuse of the process of the court. Simultaneously declining to pass the order for an investigation in genuine petitions containing truthfulness allegations, is akin to denial of justice to the needy persons. Both of these situations are dangerous.” 12. In the aforesaid judgment of Anjum (supra), this Court has issued following guidelines for passing orders on application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which are as follows : i) The investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered where the petition does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. ii) Magistrates are not under any obligation to order the investigation invariably in all the petitions, which disclose the commission of the cognizable offences. iii) Where the allegation of the commission of cognizable offence is supported by any such documents which tends to inspire the confidence of the magistrate regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the magistrate must pass the order for the investigation. iii) Where the allegation of the commission of cognizable offence is supported by any such documents which tends to inspire the confidence of the magistrate regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the magistrate must pass the order for the investigation. Such documents may include the medical report or some other cogent material of the like nature. iv) Where the allegation, in itself, is of such a nature which naturally inspire the confidence of a reasonable man in its truthfulness the magistrate must pass the order for an investigation. Such allegations include the allegation of rape, outraging the modesty of a woman, sodomy or the offence under Sections 363 and 366 etc, provided the victim is related to the petitioner. Such allegations involve the reputation of the family of the victim and the petitioner both, hence such allegations are generally, not levelled falsely. Hence in such cases also the magistrates must pass the order for an investigation. v) Where the name of the accused is not known to the petitioner, the chances of false implication are ruled out. Hence in such cases also, the investigation must be ordered, vi) Where the recovery of the victim or the victim's corpse is to be made, the investigation must be ordered. Such as in the case of allegations of the offences under Section 363, 366 and 364 IPC. vii) Where the recovery of any valuable movable property is to be made and where there is cogent document to show the ownership of the petitioner over such moveable property, the investigation may be ordered. viii) Where there is allegation regarding the commission of a heinous offence, the investigation must be ordered. Such as in the case of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder etc. ix) Where the magistrate is of the opinion that some more facts which are in obscurity but are necessary to be investigated for the just decision of the case, the magistrate may order for the investigation provided the petition discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. x) where there is nothing to convince the magistrate regarding the truthfulness of the allegation and where there is nothing to rule out the possibilities of the allegation being false, the magistrate must avoid to pass an order for investigation. 13. In the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. x) where there is nothing to convince the magistrate regarding the truthfulness of the allegation and where there is nothing to rule out the possibilities of the allegation being false, the magistrate must avoid to pass an order for investigation. 13. In the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 287 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has given following directions to the Magistrate for passing order u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a first information report to the S.O. of the concerned police station :- 29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 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. 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). 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 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 [ (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR. 14. Considering the reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order for rejecting the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and the High Court in Anjum (supra), I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. 15. There is no merit in the criminal revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.