An accused cannot stop the registration of FIR of a cognizable offence under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C.

The revisionists Vishnu aged about 60 years and his two nephews Pancham Ram and Ram Kesh were assaulted by Jawahar Lal, Som Raj, Ori Lal, Girdhari, Bhagwan Das, Raju and Magala Prasad with bricks on 27-1-2007 and the malefactors also damaged the drain which was got constructed by the applicant. When the revisionist entered into his house to save his life, assailants also entered into his house and bet him with lathi and dandas. Satya Narain, Ram Jag and co-villagers witnessed this assault, who saved the life of the revisionist. Accused persons left the spot hurling filthy abuses and threatening. Revisionist got himself medically examined in the District Hospital Basti where as his nephews got themselves medically examined in PHC Rudhauli. Police did not register FIR of victim inspite of application to the higher police officials and the police on the contrary, arrested the nephews of the revisionist. Since the FIR of the revisionists was not registered he wielded the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Basti under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. who finding prima facie cognizable offence being disclosed ordered for registration of FIR and investigation of the offence vide his order dated 27-2-2007.

2. The said order for registration of FIR and investigation dated 27-2-2007 was challenged by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 222 of 2007 who vide his impugned order dated 14-5-2007 set aside the said order of registration of FIR and investigation hence this revision by the victim to set aside the order dated 14-5-2007 passed by Sessions Judge Basti in the aforesaid revision.

3. I have heard Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA in opposition.

4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge, Basti is wholly illegal, totally unjustified and arbitrary. He contended that the application of the revisionist under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. did disclosed commission of cognizable offence and therefore Judicial Magistrate 1st Basti was justified in directing the police to register the FIR and investigate the offence. He contended that since it was a case of injury the FIR of the injured must be registered and his version must be investigated. He contended that the Sessions Judge, Basti did not examine at all that those victims who suffered injuries are entitle to get their FIR registered, if cognizable offence is disclosed, and to get the offence investigated. He contended that the order under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was a pre- cognizance order as has been held by the Apex Court and hence Sessions had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by the accused. He further contended that the accused had no right to be heard before he is summoned and no prosecution can be thwarted before the FIR is registered. He further contended the accused had no right to take part in the proceeding at a pre-cognizance stage and hence he cannot challenge any such order. He contended that no revision was maintainable at the behest of accused of cognizable offences to stall the registration of FIR of cognizable offences. He relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Rakesh Puri and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 2007 ALJ (1) 169. He contended that the decision of this Court rendered in Sabir v. Jaswant, 2002 ALJ 2264; Ajai Malviya v. State of U. P. , 2001 Crlj 313, are per incurium being contrary to the statutory provision of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. which prohibits maintainability of revision against an interlocutory order. He further contended that the order for registration of FIR is an administrative power provided under Chapter XII relating to the power of police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence. He further contended that in view of latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT Delhi), AIR 2006 SC 1322, lower revisional Court had no power to