JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 2.5.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri by which application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. Heard Sri Manish Bajpai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State and Sri Mohd. Tariq Iqbal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6. 3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist is a registered company under the Companies Act and doing business of hire purchase of vehicles. Opposite party no.2 purchased a bus through revisionist company on hire purchase agreement bus no.U.P.30-A7834 on 20.2.2007. He defaulted in payment of EMIs and refused to hand over the possession of the vehicle when demanded by the company a notice was sent for settlement of the account. Opposite party no.2 gave a cheque in reply to the settlement of account which was dishonored due to insufficient fund. Again a notice was sent then the bus was sold to the Junk Dealer. Despite, the fact that the bus is hypothicated in the name of revisionist before RTO, Hardoi. An application under Section 156(3) was filed which was rejected by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, this criminal revision has been filed. 4. Learned AGA submitted that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and is not revisable. 5. In the Case of Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 Supreme Court(Supp) 684; it has been held that "the correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice so that cognizable offence has been made out. In case, the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. 6. In the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P and Another 2011(1) ADJ page 333(FD). Full Bench of this Court has held that an order on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not revisable order. 6. As the impugned order is an order passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is an interlocutory order and thus revisionist is not maintainable. 7. Consequently, the revision is liable to fail and is hereby dismissed.