The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Criminal revision petition challenged by the proposed accused against the order passed by the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The revision petition was filed for the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in the case of Manju vs. Nahni and others, where the Magistrate issued a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police to register an FIR.

Justice Chawan Prakash stated that, “Since no criminal revision lies against an order passed by the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an FIR, the present revision, filed by the proposed accused/revisionists, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present criminal revision stands dismissed.”

Advocate Rajesh Kumar Bind appeared for the Revisionist, and the Government Advocate appeared for the Opposite Party.

The Court referred and answered three questions in the case of Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and Another as follows,

1. The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.

2. An order made under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is an interlocutory order, and remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P and others reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, and no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R. registered based on the order will be maintainable, is not correct.

In view of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench in the case of Father Thomas, an order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.

Cause Title: Nahni And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another (CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6131 of 2023)

Appearence

Revisionist: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Bind.

Opposite Party: G.A.

Click here to read/download the order



Allahabad High Court

Joyeeta Roy

Correspondent

Joyeeta is a Correspondent at Verdictum, with an LL.M. in Corporate and Commercial Law from Coochbehar Panchanan Barma University and a B.B.A. LL.B. from the Indian Institute of Legal Studies, West Bengal. Before joining Verdictum, she has worked as a Legal Editor.