25 # %. 19.08.2010 Present: Mr. S.D. Singh and Ms. Surabhi Shukla, Advs. for the petitioner. Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State. +Crl. M.A. 13923/2010 * Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Crl. M.C. 2671/2010 1. Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi wherein respondent nos. 1 to 5 were arrayed as accused. 2. Briefly stated, it was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was lawful owner of the land measuring (4-16, 4-16, 5-3, 9-19, 5-5, 4- 16) forming part of Khasra Nos. 354- to 358 and 361 situated at Village y Gadaipur,Mehrauli,Delhi. It was prayedthereinthat the respondents be summoned and punished for having committed the offence under Sections 147/148/149/452/50/307/323/448/511/427 IPG read with Section 120-B IPG and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 claimed themselves to be office bearers of Gurdwara known as Gobind Sadan and tried to take forcibly possession of the land of the petitioner on several occasions. Petitioner had filed a suit bearing GS Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified (OS) 1272/2010 in the High Court seeking decree of permanent r- injunction etc. wherein vide an interim order dated 18^^ June, 2010 the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner qua the suit land. It was further alleged that in the night intervening 19*^ and 20^^ June, 2010 respondents in order to cause terror, fired several rounds, with their common intention and knowledge that by their such act they would cause serious prejudice and damage to life and property of the petitioner. On 2^^ July, 2010 at about 8 pm respondent nos. 2 and 5 along with four unknown persons came to the land in question and at that time respondent no. 5 and his four other accomplices were armed with swords; while respondent no. 2 was armed with a rifle. They threatened the petitioner that he had committed a mistake by making complaints against the respondent no. 1 and by uttering so respondent nos. 5 and his four accomplices took out swords from the sheith while respondent no. 2 fired from his rifle aiming towards the petitioner but fortunately petitioner escaped the injury. It was alleged that the complaint made to the SHO of the local Police Station did not bring any fruitful results. 3. Along with complaint, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. Complaint, as well as this application, was considered by Metropolitan Magistrate on 20*^ July, 2010 when he deemed it fit to proceed with the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. .P,C. ) instead of ordering a Police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr Case has been listed for complainant's evidence. 4. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed Criminal Revision no. 113/2010 before the learned Additional, Session Judge, Delhi which came to be dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order dated 2^^ August, 2010. 5. Petitioner has now come up before this Court by this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the .orders passed by the courts below be set aside and investigation be ordered. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed, Magistrate has no option but to order for investigation by the Police in case averments made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. It is mandatory for the Magistrate to order investigation. Whenever commission of cognizable offence is brought to the notice of Incharge of a Police Station he is bound to. register a case as mandated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In case no such action is taken by the concerned Police officer aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in such eventuality no other option is open before the Magistrate except to order investigation in the matter by the Police officer. According to him, complaint filed by the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offences, therefore. Magistrate ought to have ordered investigation more so, when weapons of offence were to be recovered. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed an error by observing that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the facts of this case. Additional Sessions Judge has not even discussed this aspect nor has returned any finding on this point. Reliance has been placed on Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. 2007 (13) .SCALE 693, Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 571, Priya Gupta vs. The State (Delhi) 2007 (2) JCC 1330, Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh 8& Others (2008) 7 SCC 164 and Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai Ss Ors. 2009(7) SCALE 214. 7. I am not in agreenient with the learned counsel for the petitioner . that as and when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed along with a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, he has no other option but to order registration of FIR and consequent investigation. 8. Section 156 Cr.P.C. reads as under (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. Bare perusal of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shows that a Magistrate "may^' or "may not" order such investigation. The word used in sub- Section 3 of Section 156 Cr.P.C. is "ma/' and not "shall". It is not mandatory that in all cases whenever jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is invoked by a party he is bound to order for registration of FIR and consequent investigation. In Smt. Meenakshi Anand Sootha vs. State 2007(4) JCC 3230 Delhi, it has been held that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Magistrate has not to pass the order mechanically. He has to apply his judicial mind before ordering investigation. In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, it has been held that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to direct the Police for registration of FIR and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This discretion ought to be f I- exercised after proper applicationof mind and only in those cases ^ where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations are such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the court and interest of justice, demand that the police should step in to help the complainant. In Pawan Verma vs. SHO PS Model Town and others 2009 (2) JCC 1000 Delhi, it has been held that not in every case merely on asking of the petitioner the Court must direct registration of an FIR unless the Court is satisfied with the preliminary evidence which is to be submitted by the complainant that an FIR must be registered. Whenever a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is filed along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for investigation in a matter it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to order for investigation. In appropriate cases Magistrate can order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If he feels that the inquiry can be conducted by him under Chapter XV he can proceed to do so by following the procedure as laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 10. In this case. Magistrate felt that inquiry can be conducted by himself by taking recourse to Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and for this reason has adjourned the case for complainant's evidence instead of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. No infirmity can be found in the course so adopted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Allegations leveled in the complaint appears to be within the personal knowledge of the petitioner. Assistance of Police is not required to collect the evidence as the witnesses to the alleged incident can be produced by the complainant in the court during the inquiry being conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 11. Judgments on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner being in the context of different facts. In Suresh Chand's case (supra) it has not been held that whenever jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is invoked he is bound to order investigation. The manner in which complaint case has to be dealt with was not an issue in this case. Similarly, in Lalita Kumar's (supra) directions were issued to the State Government and Union Territories regarding registration of FlRs. The procedure to be followed by a Magistrate once <y a complaintunderSection 190 Cr.P.C. is filed beforehim has not been discussed in this case nor it has been held that whenever an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate he has no other option but to order investigation by the Police. In Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai's case (supra) also no such preposition has been propounded. In Sakiri Vasu's case (supra) also power of Magistrate under Chapter XIV Ss XV and the manner in which private complaints have to be dealt with has been discussed. In this case it has been held that High Courts shall discourage the practice of filing of writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the Police or after being registration thereof proper investigation has not been done by the Police. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and direct investigation by the Police. 13. Petition is dismissed. August 19, 2010 ga A.K. PATHAK, J.