1. These writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioner (complainant) challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Court entertaining the revision application preferred by the private respondents to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').

WP (Cr.) No.116 of 2013 :-The Magistrate, by its order dated 30.09.2013 has directed registration of First Information Report (for short 'FIR'), investigation and submission of final report under Section 173 of the Code. The Revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, by the impugned order dated 24.10.2013, has restrained the Police from proceeding ahead with the matter pursuant to the Magistrate's order dated 30.09.2013.

WP (Cr.) No.149 of 2014 :-A similar order was passed by the Magistrate on 17.07.2014. Against which the revision application has been entertained by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Korba, by order dated 12.08.2014, but no interim order has been passed.

2. In both the writ petitions, a common question of law has been raised by the petitioner that an order passed by the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code is not open to challenge in revisory jurisdiction by the prospective accused, therefore, the revision application before the Session Judge is not maintainable. Thus, the Sessions Court ought not to have entertained the revision and interfered with the process of registration of FIR and investigation.

3. Since both the petitions raised common question of law, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

4. Shri Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that at the pre-cognizance stage when only registration of FIR, investigation and submission of final report has been directed, the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate. Learned Counsel would refer to Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2011 Cri.L.J.2278.

5. Per contra Shri Marhas and Shri Wankhade, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, would rely on a Single Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Manohar Singh & Anr. v. State & Ors., Crl. M.C.1952 of 2009 (decided on 10.04.2013), to urge that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) being intermediate order, it is revisable and the Sessions Court has not committed any error of law by entertaining the revision applications.

6. To dwell the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code. The said provision reads thus:-

“156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases.--(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 above-mentioned.

7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 156 the officer in charge of a jurisdictional police station has power to investigate any cognizable case and under sub-section (2) such proceedings of a police officer shall not be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. Under sub-section (3), any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order for an investigation by the officer in charge of the jurisdictional police station as mentioned under sub-section (1) of Sectio