2. Heard learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.

3. By means of this revision, the prospective accused have challenged the order dated 11-9-2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) IInd, Jaunpur in criminal misc. case No. 9 of 2006 (Vindhya-vasini v. Manish and others), whereby allowing the application moved by opposite party No. 2 Vindhyavasini under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., S.O.P. S. Sureri has been directed to register the case and investigate the same.

4. At the outset, it was contended by learned A. G. A. that revision against impugned order is not legally maintainable, as the order of registration of F. I. R. cannot be challenged in revision at the instance of prospective accused and if they are aggrieved by the F. I. R., then they can invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Having, given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned A.G. A., I agree with his contention that revision against impugned order is not legally maintainable.

6. In the case of Karan Singh v. State (1997 (34) ACC 163), thi