Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1994 (ALL)

Ramji Lal v. State of U. P.

2015-07-21

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate for a direction to the police to register FIR and make investigation in the matter. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.8.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 319 of 2014 which has been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 5.9.2014, by holding that the order of the Magistrate dated 20.8.2014 rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order. For coming to such conclusion, revisional court has relied on a full bench judgment of this court in the case of Father Thomas, 2011 (1) ADJ 333 . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this court that the Full Bench judgment of this court in case of Father Thomas (Supra), was considered and explained in a subsequent Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of UP, AIR 2014 (Alld.) 2014, wherein this court has held that the judgment in the case of Father Thomas is not an authority on question whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rejecting the application is an interlocutory order or not and whether revision lies against it or not. 3. It is further submitted that, on the contrary, the Full Bench in the case of Jagannath Verma (Supra) has clearly laid down that the order of the Magistrate rejecting application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is maintainable. The Full Bench in the case of Jagannath Verma (Supra) has held as follows: - "In view of the discussion above and for the reasons which we have furnished, we have come to the following conclusion: - "(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the controversy was whether a direction to the police to register a First Information Report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is open to revision at the instance of a person suspected of having committed a crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued. Such an order was held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub section 2 of Section 397 . The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) would be amenable to a revision under Section 397 by the complainant or the informant whose application has been rejected; (ii) An order of the Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 ; and (iii) In proceedings in revision under Section 397 , the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision." 4. It is clear from the law laid down by the Full Bench that an order passed by a Magistrate rejecting application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the revisional court dated 5.9.2014 can not be sustained and is set-aside. 6. The matter will stand restored to the file of the revisional court and revisional court shall proceed to decide the same on merits, in accordance with law. Petition allowed to the extent indicated above.