Ordering Investigation U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C is a revisable order; Bombay High Court [Read Judgment]

Ordering Investigation U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C is a revisable order; Bombay High Court [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High court held that the ordering investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure, not being an interlocutory order, butbeing a final order in a proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code, is revisable under the revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court. The division bench of Justices A.B. Chaudhari & Indira K. Jain declined the request of the petitioners to exercise the power u/s 482 of CRPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but allowed the petitioners to file a revision petition.

The order made by the Magistrate was challenged through a writ petition with the submission that there is no remedy of filing revision either before the Sessions Court or this Court since the order u/s 156(3) would be an interlocutory order.

The court observed that the Magistrate,after having made an order u/s 156(3) of the Code does not have any control on the manner ofinvestigation, making of arrest of the accused or not etc. The court said that “the investigation after completionwould end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code and it is on that report thereafter, the procedure contemplated by Section 173 of the Code or rather the power of theMagistrate would come into play. In other words, the order directing investigation made by theMagistrate in the proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code would be final insofar as the Magistrate is concerned.”

The court further held that, after making of order u/s 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate has further nothing to do andthe proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code gets terminated and nothing remains pending before the Magistrate after such order is made. Despite termination of the proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the light of the principle'ubi jus ibiremedium', the petitioners / applicants cannot be denied the statutory remedy of revision, the court said.

Read the Judgment here.