$-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH + CRL.M.C. 3529/2011 MAHAK SINGH & ANR Petitioner Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate. versus MANJEET @ KAVITA & ORS Respondent Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA O R D E R % 02.12.2011 This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC against the order of the learned ASJ dated 6.9.2011 in revision petition whereby the revision petition filed against the order of learned ACMM dated 22.2.2011 was dismissed. The petitioners filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the respondents under various provisions of IPC in the court of ACMM, Karkardooma Courts. An application under Section 156(3) was also filed by them for direction for registration of FIR by the police against the respondents. The learned ACMM vide order dated 22.2.2011 dismissed the application of the petitioners under Section 156(3) CrPC and ordered for conducting enquiry by recordingcomplainantevidence. The said order of ACMM was assailedby way 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 of revision before the ASJ, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.9.2011. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is seen that the order of ACMM was passed on the perusal of police report called from the police. It was further taking note of the facts and circumstances that the learned ACMM observed that no case for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC was made out and listed the matter for complainant evidence for conducting enquiry. It is settled proposition of law that when information is made to the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take any action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case, he finds that the complainant evidence prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in cases All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employee's Union (Regd.) through President Vs. Union of India and Others, [1997 SCC (Crl.) 303] and Jagjeewan Vs. StaT^and Ors. [95(2002) DLT 1] (DB) and also Avtar Singh Vs. State & Anr. [138(2007) Delhi Law Times 653]. In the present case, the learned M.M. has listed the matter for recording evidence to conduct enquiry and after that, he would be in a better position to exercise his discretion to decide as to what course of action is to be taken as per law. Petition being without any merit is therefore dismissed. However, it is expected that the learned M.M. will expeditiously dispose of the case of the petitioners. M.L. MEHTA,J DECEMBER 02,2011 akb