Is Revision Maintainable Against the Order passed u/s 156(3) CrpC to investigate a Cognizable Case? Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a revision under section 397 CrpC is barred against an Order of Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police to investigate a cognizable case.

In this case the an order dated 18.11.2020 was passed upon an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereby the said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura with a direction for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation of the case.

The Applicant challenged the said order in revision before the Session Judge, which dismissed the same being not maintainable, in view of the Full Bench of the Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2011 (72) ACC 564.

Hon’ble Justice (Dr.) Y K Srivastava of Allahabad High Court referring to the Judgment of Father Thomas (Supra) held that 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. It has been further held that an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing a police officer to investigate a cognizable case is an interlocutory order and the remedy of revision against such order is barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.

The Court further observed:

It may therefore be reiterated that at the precognizance stage when only a direction has been issued by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to investigate a prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case before cognizance or the issuance of process. It may also be taken note of that the order by the Magistrate directing a police officer to investigate a cognizable case is an incidental step in the aid of investigation and trial and is interlocutory in nature, similar to orders granting bail, calling for records, issuing search warrants, summoning witnesses and other like matters which do not impinge upon a valuable right of a prospective accused and is, hence, not amenable to a challenge in a criminal revision in view of the bar contained under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

Click to Read/Download Judgment

Download Law Trend App

Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles