Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application is final order, revisable under Section 397 CrPC before Sessions Court; writ under Article 226 not entertained due to efficacious alternate remedy absent exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the Respondent/State.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 71, Bandra, Mumbai (hereafter “Magistrate”), whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereafter “Cr.P.C.”) was rejected (hereafter “impugned order”).

3. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner in this Petition are as follows:-

“(a) By issue of the Writ of Direction and/or Writ of Mandamus and/or such Writ and/or order in the nature of the Writ by exercising inherent and extra ordinary powers of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial magistrate first class 71th court Bandra Mumbai in Misc. Case 256 of 2023 and direct to the Respondent No.2 to take cognizance of offences against the Accused person by registering the FIR.

(b) Cost of this Petition be provided for.

(c) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require”

4. Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the Respondent/State, raises an objection to the maintainability of the present Petition. His objections are twofold: first, the impugned order is a revisable order; and second, a criminal revision application must be filed before the Sessions Court initially. He refers to and relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bipasha Deepak Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and another , Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2025 decided on 23^rd March 2026 wherein this Court has held that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is a final order, against which a criminal revision application is maintainable under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. (438 of the BNSS). He submits that the facts in the case of Bipasha Deepak Kumar (supra) are identical to those of the Petitioner, therefore, the decision in that case is directly applicable here.

5. Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, fairly submits that an order passed under section 156 of Cr.P.C. is a final order because it terminates the proceeding before the Magistrate. He does not dispute that, in the case of Bipasha Deepak Kumar (supra), the impugned order rejected the application filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and that the Petitioner there had directly approached this Court through a writ petition without first seeking the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

6. In view of the objection raised by Mr. T. G. Khan, learned APP, a query was posed to Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, as to whether the Petitioner would consider filing a criminal revision application against the impugned order in accordance with the view expressed by this Court in the case of Bipasha Deepak Kumar (supra). If so, this Court would exclude the time spent by the Petitioner in this petition, as was done in the case of Bipasha Deepak Kumar (supra). Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, respectfully declined. He submitted that he would persuade this Court to adopt a view different from the one taken in B