Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M. K. MITTAL, J.
Ravendra alias Hawaldar and Ors.
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
Cri. M. A. No. 26622 of 2007
Decided On : 5-12-2007.
Section 156(3) - Challenge to Order for Registration of FIR - [Section 156(3)] - The court held that at the pre-cognizance stage, the accused has no right to interfere in the registration of an FIR or investigation. The accused only gains the right to challenge the FIR after it has been registered. The court also emphasized that the accused has no locus to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. until the FIR is registered.
Fact of the Case:
The applications were filed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. directing for registration of the first information report and investigation of the case. The first information report had not yet been registered as stated by the applicants. The common question of law was involved, and the matters were heard together and decided by one order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants, who were not yet accused, had no locus to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. until the first information report was registered. The applications were deemed not maintainable and were dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants, who were not yet accused, had the right to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. before the first information report was registered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the pre-cognizance stage, the accused has no right to interfere in the registration of an FIR or investigation. The accused only gains the right to challenge the FIR after it has been registered. The court also emphasized that the accused has no locus to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. until the FIR is registered.
Final Decision: The applications were deemed not maintainable and were dismissed.
2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 26622 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 19-9-2007 passed by C.J.M., Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 311 of 2007. Criminal Misc. Application No.26623 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 27-9-2007 passed by C.J.M., Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 779 of 2007, Criminal Misc. Application No. 2778 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 30-10-2007 passed by A.C.J.M., Agra in Criminal Misc. Application No. 242 of 2007, Criminal Misc. Application No. 27756 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 13-11-2007 passed by C.J.M., Bulandshahar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1210 of 2007, Criminal Misc. Application No. 27758 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 17-10-2007 passed by upper Civil Judge, Court No. 21, Deoria in criminal case No. 81 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 27759 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 5-11-2007 passed by Special C.J.M., Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 560 of 2007.
3. I have heard Sri S. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 26622 of 2007 and 26623 of 2007, Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27748 of 2007, Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27756 of 2007, Sri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27758 of 2007, Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27759 of 2007 and learned A.G.A. and have perused the material on record.
4. In these matters learned Magistrate finding that prima facie cognizable case was made out directed for registration of the first information report. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned orders as cognizable case is not made out against them and the applications under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. were liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection and has contended that in these matters the applications are not maintainable as the applicants being proposed or would be accused have no locus to file the applications and to challenge the impugned orders unless the reports are registered against them.
5. The proceedings under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. are at a pre-cognizance stage and in these proceedings, the accused has no right to appear and to take part. It is a matter between the complainant and the Court and if the Court finds that a prima facie cognizable case is made out from the allegations as made, it can direct for registration and investigation of the case. Admittedly the first information report has not yet been registered and unless the first information report is registered a person cannot be treated to be an accused in the case. When first information report is lodged against accused person only then he will have a right, legal as well as
constitutional, to challenge the same.
6. When the application is filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. in the Court of a Magistrate, it is a matter between the applicant and the Court and the accused does not come into picture as no cognizance of the offence is taken in the matter. The Honble Apex Court has laid down in several cases that the accused does not have any right to interfere in the registration of an FIR or investigation of the same. It is settled position of law that the accused has no right to be heard before he is summoned.
7. Learned counsel for t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
