Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by Sessions Judge Basti, in Criminal Revision No. 451/07, Nagendra Tiwari v. State of U.P. and another with the further prayer to restore the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate directing for registration and investigation of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. alleging that on 12th December, 2005 at about 10.00 in the day Awadhesh Prasad Tiwari, Ram Krishna Tiwari, Ram Singhasan Tiwari and Nagendra Tiwari armed with lathis and dandas came near the canal in village Bhitiya Digar where he and his brother Sadhu Prasad were grazing pigs. These persons abused the informant and his brother and also called them with caste denoting words and beat them with lathis and dandas. On the alarm raised the witnesses came and saved them. The informant and his brother received injuries. The learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case directed for registration and investigation of the case and further directed the S.O. concerned to submit compliance report within three days. Against that order Nagendra Tiwari filed Criminal Revision No. 451/07 in the Court of Sessions Judge Basti and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 held that the revision was maintainable and that in view of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. the Station Officer of a police station could only investigate the matter. But in this case allegations were also under the SC/ST Act and that case could be investigated by officer not below the rank the Deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore, no such direction could have been issued by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the present application has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the revision as filed in the Court of Sessions Judge against the order of the learned Magistrate was not competent because Nagendra Tiwari is only a prospective accused and he had no locus standi to file revision and the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the revision was maintainable. This contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is correct. If an application is filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in the Court of a learned 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. If the learned Magistrate finds that a prima facie case is made out which requires investigation, he can direct for registration and investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Unless the report is registered against the person named therein as accused his legal or fundamental rights are not infringed and he has no locus to challenge that order. The Hon’ble 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. In the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana 1977 SCC (Cri) 585 it has been held that the accused has got no right to be heard before he is summoned and no proceeding in his respect takes place before that stage. Therefore, Nagendra Tiwari had no right to file the revision against the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the revision was maintainable.

5. Learned Sessions Judge has also observed that in this case the offence was also allegedly committed within the provisions of the SC/ST Act and that could only be investigated by an Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have directed for registration and investigation of the case under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. In order to a