IMPORTANT POINT
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.Interlocutory order is "An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations or right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed "interlocutory".

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants – original accused persons call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 26th July 2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in the Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2016.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:-

2.1 The respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint in writing in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint, the applicants herein have been shown as the accused persons. The learned Magistrate thought fit to pass an order directing the police to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.2 Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the police to register the F.I.R. and undertake the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the First Information Report came to be registered at the Mansa Police Station as the M. Case No.1 of 2016.

2.3 The applicants herein, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate of police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., thought fit to challenge the same by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2016 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar.

2.4 In the course of the hearing of the revision application, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State as well as the original complainant as regards the maintainability of the revision application. It was submitted before the Revisional Court that an order passed by the Magistrate of police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and the revision would be barred by virtue of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.

3. The Revisional Court upheld the objection and rejected the revision application. Being dissatisfied, the applicants have come up with this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Parthiv Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that the Revisional Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. He would submit that an order of police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed as an interlocutory order, but is a final order. In other words, the order directing investigation made by the Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code would be final so far as the Magistrate is concerned.

5. Mr. Bhatt submits that the Revisional Court committed a serious error by placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2011 CrLJ 2278. According to the learned counsel, the said decision is clearly distinguishable since the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court did not advert to the fact of termination of the proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code after passing of the order of the Magistrate thereunder and thus, the said proceeding ending into a final order.

6. Mr. Bhatt submits that after passing of the order under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate has nothing further to do and the proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code gets terminated. Nothing remains pending before the Magistrate after such order is passed. Mr. Bhatt would submit that despite the termination of the proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in light of the principle “ubi jus ibi remedium”, the applicants herein cannot be denied the statutory remedy of revision under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

7. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants prays that the impugned order be quashed and it be held that a re