Hon’ble Mushaffey Ahmad, J.—These two criminal revisions have been preferred against the orders passed by the Magistrates on the applications moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Since a common question is involved in both the revisions, they are taken up together.

2. In the first case, the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 3.11.2013 treated the application of the applicant as complaint, where the complainant had alleged against Opp. Party offences of criminal house trespass, mishandling and committing rape on her under threat. In the second case, complainant Radhika Devi alleged against the Opp. Party the offences of cheating and forging of documents in respect of agricultural land, but The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 20.9.2013 rejected the application.

3. Learned A.G.A. makes preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision against these orders on the strength of this Court’s Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB).

Learned counsel for the revisionists, on the other hand, press for admission of and full fledged hearing on the revisions.

Thus, we are called upon to see if the revisions arising from the orders under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are barred in the light of father Thomas Case (Supra).

The Full Bench was constituted to consider and decide three questions referred to by Hon’ble J.C. Gupta J, as His Lordship then was, and those three questions were;

(A) Whether the order of the Magistrate made in exercise of power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register and investigate it is open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process has been issued?

(B) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973?

(C) Whether the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajai Malviya v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (41) A.C.C. 435 (D.B.) that an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to revision, no writ petition for quashing of First Information Report registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is correct?

The applications under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are either allowed and police concerned is directed to register and investigate the case as alleged in the applications, or they are rejected.

4. The Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Father Thomas (Supra) discussed a catena of case laws based on the question whether prospective accused can be heard at the time of disposal of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and held that such a person is not entitled to any hearing before or at the time of disposal of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the Full Bench held that no revision lay against such an order. The decision to this effect has been based upon the premise that the order passed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police concerned to register a case and investigate it does not affect the rights of the accused, and therefore it is purely an interlocutory in nature. The conclusions of the Court have been based upon a number of case laws discussed.

5. The cases such as one in Revision No. 3381 of 2013, where a woman of a weaker section has alleged the offence of rape on her more than once against persons not on convenient terms with her husband, as the Magistrate has mentioned it in the order, with incessant deterioration in the social and moral set up, shall strain the concept that the rights of perspective accused are not affected by order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

6. But there is another situation, and that is when an application disclosing a cognizable offence is rejected, a valuable right of the aggrieved to get justice by bringing the accused to book through agency of the State is infring