Allahabad Excessive Courtroom Clarifies: Justice of the Peace’s Order Underneath U/S 156(3) for FIR Registration Not Topic to Revision by Potential Accused

A Bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a felony revision petition, noting that an order handed beneath Part 156 (3) CrPC is an interlocutory order and can’t be challenged in revision beneath Part 397(2) CrPC.

It famous that on the stage of Part 156(3) CrPC, neither cognizance has been taken nor any course of issued in opposition to the accused, the order shouldn’t be open to problem at his occasion.

“Since no felony revision lies in opposition to an order handed by the Justice of the Peace in train of powers beneath Part 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an FIR, the current revision, filed by the proposed accused/revisionists, shouldn’t be maintainable“, the bench noticed.

The HC was coping with a petition filed by Nahni and others (Revisionists). They sought to put aside an order handed by the Extra Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace (ACJM), Hathras, directing the registration of an FIR in opposition to them.

The counsel for the state raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the revision itself, as it was argued that the impugned order doesn’t hurt the rights of the proposed accused/revisionist.

To assist this competition, the AGA relied closely on the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom within the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and One other (2010).

Justice Chawan Prakash referred to the choice of the HC within the Father Thomas case and famous that the next three key questions have been answered:

1. The order of the Justice of the Peace beneath Part 156 (3) CrPC directing the police to register and examine shouldn’t be open to revision on the occasion of an individual in opposition to whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any course of issued.
2. Such an order is an interlocutory order and treatment of revision in opposition to such order is barred beneath sub-section (2) of Part 397 CrPC.
3. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Courtroom within the case of Ajay Malviya Vs. State of U.P and others 2000(41) ACC 435 that such an order is amenable to revision, shouldn’t be right.

Towards this backdrop, Justice Prakash opined that in view of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench, the order is solely interlocutory and the revision on the occasion of the proposed accused is barred.

Accordingly, the Prison Revision plea was dismissed.

Case title – Nahni And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and One other

Quotation :

Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Order