VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

The case has been taken up in the revised list. None is present for the revisionist.

2. Heard arguments of Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. By means of this Revision, order dated 09. 01. 2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in criminal misc. application no. 17 of 2002 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Ram Dhani and others) under section 462, 466, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC has been challenged by the prospective accused.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application of Smt. Maya Devi under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and S. O. P. S. Robertsganj has been directed to investigate the case after registration of the FIR.

5. At the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA that revision against the impugned order is not legally maintainable as the prospective accused has no right

to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. directing investigation after restoration of the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document