Magistrate Order U/S 156 (3) For FIR Registration Not Open To Revision At Instance Of Prospective Accused :Allahabad High Court

A Bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a criminal revision petition, noting that an order passed under Section 156 (3) CrPC is an interlocutory order and cannot be challenged in revision under Section 397(2) CrPC.

It noted that at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC, neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued against the accused, the order is not open to challenge at his instance.

"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", the bench observed.

The HC was dealing with a petition filed by Nahni and others (Revisionists). They sought to set aside an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Hathras, directing the registration of an FIR against them.

The counsel for the state raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision itself, as it was argued that the impugned order does not harm the rights of the proposed accused/revisionist.

To support this contention, the AGA relied heavily on the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and Another (2010).

Justice Chawan Prakash referred to the decision of the HC in the Father Thomas case and noted that the following three key questions were answered:

1. The order of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) CrPC 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. Such an order is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC.
3. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya Vs. State of U.P and others 2000(41) ACC 435 that such an order is amenable to revision, is not correct.

Against this backdrop, Justice Prakash opined that in view of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench, the order is purely interlocutory and the revision at the instance of the proposed accused is barred.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision plea was dismissed.

Case title - Nahni And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

Citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download Order