Mukta Gupta, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 28th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the order dated 22nd June, 2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing addition of relevant sections pertaining to cognisable offences in the FIR was set aside, the petitioner prefers this petition seeking quashing of the order dated 28th November, 2015 and prays for directions to the Investigating Officer to add the relevant sections, which are made out from a bare reading of the FIR.

2. Factual matrix of the present case is that on 16th March, 2015, the petitioner filed a complaint against Respondent No. 1 and his family members with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Saket, New Delhi seeking registration of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/406/376/377/498A/506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since the police officials were not registering the FIR, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 8th May, 2015 seeking directions to SHO, PS Defence Colony to register the FIR pursuant to the aforesaid complaint. In the action taken report filed by the SHO, PS Defence Colony, it was informed that FIR No. 220/2015 was registered at PS Defence Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Respondent No. 1 and his family members on 17th May, 2015 on the complaint of the petitioner made to CAW Cell. On 21st May, 2015, the Petitioner filed another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions for addition of offences punishable under Sections 120B/109/420/376/377/504/506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Vide order dated 22nd June, 2015, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO, PS Vivek Vihar to add the above mentioned sections in the FIR. Relevant extract of the order dated 22nd June, 2015 is as under:

"Perusal of the complaint of the complainant shows that she has levelled several allegations against the accused regarding cognisable offences and still the FIR has been registered only u/s 498A/406/34 IPC in a routine manner, neglecting the fact that other offences have also been alleged in the complaint.

In view of the same, SHO PS Vivek Vihar is now directed to add other sections pertaining to cognisable offences in the FIR as per law and to place the copy of the same on record on next date of hearing and also file status report on next date of hearing."

3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 22nd June, 2016, Respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition on 13th July, 2015 which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 28th November, 2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 22nd June, 2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate clarifying that the same shall not cause any hindrance or barrier in the investigation being conducted by the concerned branch of Delhi Police or to prevent or forbid or debar the police from filing its final report in respect of all such offences, which according to its final investigation, were found to have been committed in this case after conclusion of its investigation. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not empowered to entertain the revision petition filed by Respondent No.1 against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to challenge the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as the accused has no locus standi at the investigation/pre-summoning stage and he cannot insist for hearing before process is issued against him. Reliance was placed upon the decisions reported as (2012) 10 SCC 517 Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 308 Tata Motors Ltd. v. State, 109 (2004) DLT 394 Chitra Narain v. NDTV and Ors., (2008