A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1] The question that falls for consideration before this Court is as under:

“Whether the order made by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Police to make investigation would be an interlocutory order ?

If no, whether remedy of revision u/s 397 or Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would lie ?

2] The question has arisen for consideration as challenge to the order made by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for brevity), has been raised in these matters either by way of Criminal Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or u/s 482 of the Code with the submission that there is no remedy of filing revision either before the Sessions Court or this Court since the order u/s 156(3) would be an interlocutory order.

3] The learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Dr. Shriram Mukundrao Kalyankar v. State of Maharashtra (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2484) and it is submitted that it is held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the said decision that revision challenging the order u/s 156(3) of the Code is not maintainable. We have perused the reasoning in paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the said judgment and we find that the reason assigned is that such an order u/s 156(3) of the Code was not an order issuing process but only an order issuing directions for investigation. There is no other reason given for holding that the revision was not maintainable.

4] Section 156 in entirety reads thus:-

“156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case :

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.”

5] Section 202 Subsection (1) of the Code reads thus:-

“202. Postponement of issue of process :

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.” (emphasis supplied)

6] Section 156(3) of the Code is in Chapter XII while Section 200, including Section 202, falls in Chapter XV.

7] In the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & others v. V. Narayana Reddy & others (AIR 1976 SC 1672), a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court held thus in paragraph no.17 as under:-

“17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate"; while Section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading "Of complaints to Magistrates". The power It order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the precognizance stage, the second at the postcognizance s