In the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB) it has been held that :
"at the pre cognizance stage, when only a direction has been issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate, the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge such direction for investigation of a cognizable case before cognizance or the issuance of process. An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. passed by a Magistrate directing a police officer to investigate a cognizable case is not an order which impinges on the valuable rights of the party. An order by the Magistrate for investigation is an ancillary step in 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 infringe upon valuable rights of a prospective accused and hence not amenable to challenge in a criminal revision in view of bar the contained in Section 397(2) of the Code."
In the recent judgment of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of U.P.; 2014 (8) ADJ 439, another Full Bench of this Court while reiterating the law laid down in Father Thomas case (supra) has held that a direction to the police to register a first information report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, attracts the bar under sub Section 2 of Section 397 of the Code. However, if the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is rejected, the rejection order cannot be termed as interlocutory order and such an order is amenable to the remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and in such case the prospective accused or the person suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard.
As in the present case the impugned order is an order directing the police to investigate the case, the revisionists, who are prospective accused persons, have no right to challenge this order by way of revision.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3159 of 2014
Brijesh @ Sonu V State Of U.P. And Another
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 5.9.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 123 of 2014, Babbi Vs. Brijesh @ Sonu, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bhawarkol, district Ghazipur whereby the learned Magistrate while allowing the application moved by respondent no. 2 Babbi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has directed the police to register and investigate the case .
No one appeared on behalf of the revisionists even in the revised call. Learned A.G.A. representing the opposite party no. 1 is present.
The ordersheet shows that this revision has yet not been admitted. On the first date i.e. 2.12.2014 also, no one was present on behalf of the revisionists, hence this Court directed to list this revision in due course. However, even today no one has appeared. No purpose is going to be served by directing the office to list this revision in due course. At the admission stage the first thing required to be looked into is the maintainability of the case.
As a revision petition cannot be dismissed in default or for want of prosecution, I am deciding this issue after hearing learned A.G.A. and after carefully perusing the record in wake of settled legal position.
The impugned order has been challenged by the revisionist merely on the ground that without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order directing the Police Station Bhawarkol, Ghazipur to register a first information report against the revisionist under suitable sections.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision by submitting that in view of the clear legal position as laid by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Father Thomas v. State of U.P. 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB) reiterated in a recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagannath Verma and others versus State of U.P. and another, 2014 8 ADJ 439, the revision against the order of Magistrate directing to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In so far as the opportunity of hearing of accused/revisionists, before passing the order, is concerned, they have no locus standie at this stage.
In the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB) it has been held that :
"at the pre cognizance stage, when only a direction has been issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate, the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge such direction for investigation of a cognizable case before cognizance or the issuance of process. An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. passed by a Magistrate directing a police officer to investigate a cognizable case is not an order which impinges on the valuable rights of the party. An order by the Magistrate for investigation is an ancillary step in 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 infringe upon valuable rights of a prospective accused and hence not amenable to challenge in a criminal revision in view of bar the contained in Section 397(2) of the Code."
In the recent judgment of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of U.P.; 2014 (8) ADJ 439, another Full Bench of this Court while reiterating the law laid down in Father Thomas case (supra) has held that a direction to the police to register a first information report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, attracts the bar under sub Section 2 of Section 397 of the Code. However, if the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is rejected, the rejection order cannot be termed as interlocutory order and such an order is amenable to the remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and in such case the prospective accused or the person suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard.
As in the present case the impugned order is an order directing the police to investigate the case, the revisionists, who are prospective accused persons, have no right to challenge this order by way of revision.
Perhaps for this reason, the learned counsel for the revisionists is not appearing in the Court to argue on its admission.
The revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2016
No comments:
Post a Comment