Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—”Whether the prospective accused can challenge the order directing investigation of the case after registration of the FIR”, is the main question that falls for consideration in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by means of which, the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad on application No. 293/XII of 2008 (Smt. Baby v. Abdul Aziz and others) has been challenged.

2. By the impugned order, the application moved by Smt. Baby (Opposite party No. 2) under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. has been allowed and S.O. P.S. Kareli (Allahabad) has been directed to investigate the case after lodging the F.I.R. on the basis of that application.

3. Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA about maintainability of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the impugned order and it is contended by him that the order passed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. directing investigation of the case after registration of the FIR cannot be challenged by the prospective accused either in the proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or in Revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. and hence the application in present case moved by the applicants under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that with mala fide intention with a view to harass the applicants, application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Baby with entirely false allegations and hence, impugned order can be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, I find force in the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned AGA. As stated herein-above, the application moved by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Baby under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the Court below vide impugned order and S.O. P.S. Kareli (Allahabad) has been directed to investigate the case after registration of the FIR. In my considered opinion, such order cannot be challenged by the prospective accused either in Revision or in the proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Gulam Mustafa @ Jabbar v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (61) ACC 922. This matter was also considered by this Court in the case of Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhary and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(60) ACC 476.

7. In Para 9 of the case of Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (supra), following observations have been made :

“At this stage accused does not come into picture at all, nor can he be heard. He has no locus to participate in the proceedings. He can at the most stand and watch the proceedings. It must be remembered that it is pre-cognizance stage. The nature of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. directing registration and investigation of case is only a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its power of investigation under Section 156(1), Cr.P.C., as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devarappalli Lak-Shaminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others, 1976 ACC 230. How such a reminder is subject to revisional power of the Court is something which goes beyond comprehension. From the nature of the order itself, it is clear that it is an interlocutory order, not amenable to revisional power of the Court. Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. specifically bars revision filed against interlocutory orders.”

8.This Court in the case of Karan Singh v. State, 1997 (34) ACC 163, has observed as follows:-

“Where an order is made under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. directing the police to register FIR and investigate the same, the Code nowhere provides that t