SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Singh for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 20.9.2010 passed in application No. 711 of 2010, Mansingh Chauhan v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad allowed the application moved by the respondent No. 2 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed the S.O. concerned to register and investi­gate the matter. A copy of the application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as annexure 4 to the revision. It is alleged in the application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the power of attorney dated 5.5.1982 was not executed by the respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh Tikka, which was fabricated by the Subhash Chandra Sharma and other revi­sionists. Accordingly, the power of attorney is a forged document. The learned Addi­tional Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the allegations made in the application had disclosed commission of cognizable of­fences of serious nature, therefore, an investigation in the matter was required.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revi­sionists submitted that the power of attor­ney dated 5.5.1982 was a genuine docu­ment, which was executed by the respon­dent No. 2 himself. The allegations that the said power of attorney was false, are noth­ing except a concoction. It was next submit­ted that the learned Magistrate did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the revisionists before passing the impugned order dated 20.9.2010. It was further sub­mitted that the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. was also attracted in this case, therefore, lodging of the F.I.R. was not proper.;