JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. By means of this instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2023 whereby an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected. In the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist had alleged that younger brother of opposite party No.6 was having a love affair with a girl. However, marriage of that girl was settled with some other person, due to which the younger brother of opposite party No.6 had committed suicide in the month of June’ 2023. An FIR was lodged in this regard on 01.07.2023 against the complainant’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On 03.07.2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8 entered the revisionist’s house at about 04:30 PM, her 15 years old daughter was alone in the house, the aforesaid persons started searching for the revisionist’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her daughter objected against it, the opposite party No.6 molested and raped her and the opposite party Nos.7 & 8 had beaten her and had bitten on her cheeks. A complaint in this regard was given to the police on 03.07.2023 itself and thereafter complaint were sent to various authorities through registered post on 30.08.2023. 3. The trial court took into consideration the facts averred in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and noted that although the revisionist has alleged that she had given information of the incident at the police station on 03.07.2023 but information was given to the police Commissioner through registered post only on 30.08.2023. On 01.07.2023, a case was lodged against the complainant’s son for abetting the brother of opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8 to commit suicide. The allegation of commission of rape merely two days thereafter appears to be wholly unnatural. There are no witnesses of the alleged incident. There is no medico-legal examination report to support the allegation. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of U.P.: 2015 (6) SCC 287 , the trial Court rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 4. There are no witnesses of the alleged incident. There is no medico-legal examination report to support the allegation. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of U.P.: 2015 (6) SCC 287 , the trial Court rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 4. While challenging the validity of the order rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh: (2014) 2 SCC Page 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that : “Conclusion/Directions 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of gall information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 5. However, the judgment in Lalita Kumari (Supra) was considered and explained in a later decision in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), and the relevant passage of the judgment is being reproduced below: - “26. At this stage, we may usefully refer to what the Constitution Bench has to say in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. in this regard. The larger Bench had posed the following two questions: “(i) Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads to scope for manipulation by the police which affects the right of the victim/complainant to have a complaint immediately investigated upon allegations being made; and (ii) Whether in cases where the complaint/information does not clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered then does it infringe the rights of an accused.” Answering the questions posed, the larger Bench opined thus: “49. Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given their literal meaning. *** 72. It is thus unequivocally clear that registration of FIR is mandatory and also that it is to be recorded in the FIR book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by the superior police officers as well as by the competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent. *** 111. … the Code gives power to the police to close a matter both before and after investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The section itself states that a police officer can start investigation when he has ‘reason to suspect the commission of an offence’. Therefore, the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code. The police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. *** 115. The police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. *** 115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.” (emphasis in original) After so stating the Constitution Bench proceeded to state that where a preliminary enquiry is necessary, it is not for the purpose for verification or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. After laying down so, the larger Bench proceeded to state: “120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the general diary entry.” We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncement for the purpose that in certain circumstances the police is also required to hold a preliminary enquiry whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.” 6. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the general diary entry.” We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncement for the purpose that in certain circumstances the police is also required to hold a preliminary enquiry whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.” 6. After considering the dictum laid down in Lalita Kumari (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) that: - “27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. * * * 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), it appears that the revisionist had alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., that Amit Kumar Kanaujia, a younger brother of opposite party No.6, was having a love affair with a girl named Manisha. However, marriage of that girl was settled with some other person, due to which reason Amit Kumar Kanaujia had committed suicide and an FIR was lodged in this regard on 01.07.2023 against the complainant’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia. However, marriage of that girl was settled with some other person, due to which reason Amit Kumar Kanaujia had committed suicide and an FIR was lodged in this regard on 01.07.2023 against the complainant’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On 03.07.2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8 entered the revisionist’s house at about 04:30 p.m., her 15 years old daughter was alone in the house, the aforesaid persons started searching for the revisionist’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her daughter objected against it, the opposite party No.6 molested her and raped her by putting a finger in her vagina and threatened to tear away her vagina and the opposite party Nos.7 & 8 had beaten her and had bitten on her cheeks. It is alleged in the application that a complaint in this regard was given to the police on 03.07.2023, regarding which there is no documentary proof and the complaint to various authorities was sent through registered post only on 30.08.2023, i.e. about two months after the alleged incident. 8. The trial Court has considered the facts stated in the complaint in a judicial manner and has come to a conclusion that it is wholly unnatural that the persons, whose brother had committed suicide merely two days ago, will go to the accused house and commit a sexual offence. There are no witnesses of the alleged incident. There is no medical examination report to support the allegation. There are no witnesses of the incident. In these circumstances, the Magistrate has rightly come to a conclusion that it appears that the complainant has been lodged in order to put pressure on the applicants in the case under Section 306 I.P.C. lodged against the complainant’s son by using her minor daughter as a victim in an attempt to protect the complainant’s son. 9. There appears to be no illegality in the aforesaid well reasoned order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Special Judge warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. The revision lack merit and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.