JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

Crl.M.A. 1952/2023 & Crl.M.A. 1953/2023

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(Crl) 209/2023

3. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Court in Crl. Rev. 23/2020 and to restore the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned ACMM.

4. In the present case, the learned ACMM vide order dated 06.01.2020 on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was pleased to disregard the action taken report (“ATR”) and direct registration of the FIR.

5. The said order was challenged by the respondents herein in a revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge who firstly discussed the legal position and held that the revision petition is maintainable.

6. Secondly, the learned Sessions Court was of the view that once the action taken report opined that no cognizable offence is made out and the matter is civil in nature, for the learned ACMM to disagree with the opinion of the inquiry officer and order registration of FIR would require reasons.

7. The Sessions Court was of the view that the order of 06.01.2020 was devoid of reasons and hence the Sessions Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 06.01.2020 and remand the matter to ACMM to hear afresh and take a reasoned decision.

8. This order of the Sessions Court has been challenged by the petitioner.

9. It is stated by Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel that the order directing registration of FIR is an interlocutory order and has relied upon judgment of Gujarat High Court in “Parmar Rameshchandra Ganpatray & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.” in Spl. Criminal Appl. No. 5789/2016 and more particularly para 45 and 50 which read as under:

“45. The moot question is if a revision application against mere registration of F.I.R. by the police is not maintainable whether such revision would be held maintainable when the Magistrate only directs registration of FIR. In the opinion of this Court, the answer is an emphatic No. Exercise of revisory power conferred by the Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code would occasion when there is an order passed by the competent court, which is not interlocutory in nature, however, the said power cannot be exercised to quash the FIR or investigation because such power can be exercised only by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. If the revision application is considered to be maintainable before the Sessions Court against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and if such revision is allowed it would have effect of quashing the FIR, therefore, if the Sessions Court has no such powers otherwise, it cannot do so by entertaining a revision against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code. [See: Amor Nath vs. State of Haryana (supra)]

……….

50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an "interlocutory order" and the revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. would not lie. At the same time, an order of the Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an "interlocutory order". Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C.”

10. He also relied on the judgment of Allahabad High Court viz., “Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. & Ors.” in CRL.REV. No. 1581/2001, 1640/2001, 1656/2001, 1658/2001, 1727/2001, 1731/2001 and more particularly para 46 and 54 which read as under:

“46. As the direction for investigation passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) is purely interlocutory in nature, and involves no substantial rights of the parties, we are of the view that the bar under Section 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure to the entertainment