ORDER : This criminal revision case is filed by the revision petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.SR.No.3369 of 2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a private complaint in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act by A1 to A14, with a prayer to refer the complaint to the SHO, Maheshwaram for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant, in substance, was that he and one Muzaffar Hussain Khan were the absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule lands, having purchased the same in the year 2005 under Agreements of Sale–cum– Irrevocable General Power of Attorney. It was alleged that despite subsisting stay orders granted by the High Court in earlier writ proceedings and despite the lands being reflected as prohibited properties, the A.P. Bhoodan Board and revenue authorities illegally treated the land as Bhoodan land, issued passbooks in favour of private individuals, and facilitated successive transfers culminating in execution of sale deeds in favour of A12 to A14. It was further alleged that though a complaint was given to the police and acknowledgment was issued, no FIR was registered, compelling the complainant to approach the Court. 3. The trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and framed the point for consideration as to whether the complainant was entitled to have the private complaint referred to the SHO, Maheshwaram for investigation. Upon detailed consideration, it was noted that the documents relied upon by the complainant, namely Agreements of Sale–cum–Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, did not convey title and, therefore, the complainant’s claim of absolute ownership and locus standi itself was doubtful. It was found that the alleged “categorical directions” of the Revisional Court for investigation into multiple offences were not borne out from the certified copy of the order produced. Further, though several offences were mechanically listed against A1 to A14, the complaint and the sworn statement lacked specific factual averments, overt acts, and necessary allegations of criminal intent attributable to the accused. Further, though several offences were mechanically listed against A1 to A14, the complaint and the sworn statement lacked specific factual averments, overt acts, and necessary allegations of criminal intent attributable to the accused. It was observed that multiple writ petitions were already pending with respect to the subject land and that the dispute essentially pertained to civil and statutory issues concerning title and alleged illegal transfers by a statutory body. 4. On an overall appreciation of the complaint, sworn statement, and documents, the trial Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out for directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the allegations were vague, omnibus, and devoid of material particulars constituting the alleged offences. Holding that the private complaint lacked merits and that the appropriate remedy lay elsewhere, the trial Court dismissed the private complaint. Hence, this revision case. 5. Heard Sri Lateef Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manik Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 14, and MS. Achyuth Bharadwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.15. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 is illegal, improper, incorrect, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law and criminal jurisprudence. He contended that instead of confining the scrutiny to the existence of cognizable offences and compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the trial Court erroneously ventured into appreciation of documents, title to the property, locus standi of the complainant, and alleged absence of criminal intent, which is wholly impermissible at the pre-investigation stage. He averred that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant never sought taking of cognizance, but only prayed for enforcement of statutory duty of the police to register an FIR and investigate the offences disclosed in the complaint. 7. He incessantly contended that the trial Court completely ignored binding and relevant orders passed in Crl.R.C.No.27 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2023, orders in W.P.S.R.No.11844 of 2023 dated 17.04.2023, registration of FIR No.83 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023, and orders in Crl.S.R.No.243 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, all of which established the complainant’s locus and the existence of serious allegations warranting investigation. He lamented that despite these orders, the learned Magistrate wrongly doubted the locus of the complainant and made conclusive findings as though adjudicating the merits of the case, thereby assuming the role of an investigating agency and granting a clean chit to the accused at a pre-investigation stage. 8. He asserted that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the complaint was devoid of material particulars and in commenting upon the absence of prima facie case and criminal intent, without assigning cogent reasons and without considering the sworn affidavit and the material documents filed along with the complaint. He pointed out that the impugned order is conspicuously silent with respect to offences under Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act, despite specific pleadings and documents showing prohibited transactions of land claimed by the Bhoodan Board. The endorsement and undertakings contained in the registered sale deeds themselves, making the executants liable for criminal action in the event of false declarations, were completely overlooked. Therefore, he prayed that this Court to set aside the order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 by allowing this revision case. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, respectively, submitted that the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 is legal, proper, and well-reasoned. It was contended that the Magistrate rightly exercised discretion under Sections 200 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. after applying judicial mind to the complaint and the documents filed. The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being discretionary, the Magistrate is not bound to mechanically refer every complaint to the police. The issue raised by the revision petitioner regarding lack of power of the Magistrate to examine the complaint at the pre-investigation stage is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. 10. It was averred that the revision petitioner has no locus standi, as he is not the owner of the subject land and relies only on Agreements of Sale-cum-GPA, which do not confer title and were subsequently cancelled. The respondents are bona fide purchasers under valid registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks were issued after due process. It was averred that the revision petitioner has no locus standi, as he is not the owner of the subject land and relies only on Agreements of Sale-cum-GPA, which do not confer title and were subsequently cancelled. The respondents are bona fide purchasers under valid registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks were issued after due process. It was also submitted that civil disputes regarding the same subject land are already pending before competent civil Courts and that the revision petitioner is attempting to give a civil dispute a criminal colour. Therefore, they prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal revision case. 11. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by embarking upon an appreciation of title, locus standi, and criminal intent at the pre-investigation stage, thereby, virtually adjudicating the merits of the allegations, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents, respectively, justified the impugned order contending that the Magistrate is duty bound to apply judicial mind under Sections 200 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case warranting investigation. Thus, the core controversy revolves around the scope and limits of enquiry to be undertaken by a Magistrate while dealing with a private complaint seeking reference to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 12. The legal position is well settled that at the stage of consideration of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and cannot act as a mere post office or forwarding agency. However, such application of mind is confined to examining whether the information placed before the Court discloses the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation by the police. The scope of such preliminary scrutiny or enquiry is limited and is not meant for testing the truthfulness, correctness, or otherwise of the allegations, nor for undertaking a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact, title, locus standi, or civil rights of the parties. The Magistrate is also not expected to assess the sufficiency of evidence or to render findings touching upon criminal intent, which are matters squarely falling within the domain of investigation. 13. The Magistrate is also not expected to assess the sufficiency of evidence or to render findings touching upon criminal intent, which are matters squarely falling within the domain of investigation. 13. The purpose of the initial enquiry at this stage is only to ascertain whether the information received, if taken at face value, reveals the commission of any cognizable offence. There is no doubt that while the Magistrate has to apply his mind, such application must remain within the permissible contours of law. The Magistrate cannot, under the guise of applying mind, virtually conduct a mini-trial or return conclusive findings on merits, thereby foreclosing investigation altogether. In other words, while the Magistrate cannot be a mere postman, the Court must also strictly adhere to the limited scope of enquiry envisaged under Sections 200 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. 14. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court went beyond the permissible scope of enquiry by entering into issues relating to title, locus standi, civil nature of the dispute, and alleged absence of criminal intent, and by recording findings which are in the nature of final conclusions. The allegations in the complaint, whether ultimately sustainable or not, are specific and particular, and their veracity or otherwise could only be tested by a proper investigation. At the stage at which the complaint was considered, the trial Court was only required to examine whether the allegations disclose any cognizable offence and not to decide the merits of the dispute. In view of the above legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and warrants interference. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, setting aside the order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 by the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.