The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the maintainability of criminal revision against an order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

This criminal revision has been filed by Preeti Srivastava challenging the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow by which an application under Section156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. Heard Sri T. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist assisted by Sri Vishnu Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel and Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned AGA for the State.

3. Brief facts of the case is essential for this revision is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Preeti Srivastava before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow for directing the police station concerned to register an FIR and for investigating the matter this application was rejected by which Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision has been filed.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that as the contents of the application constitute a cognizable offence hence the magistrate was bound to allow the application and direct the Station Incharge concerned to register and investigate the case.

5. Learned AGA argued that in view of the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2011 Crl. Law Journal 2278 criminal revision is not maintainable.

6. Replying to the argument learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the case of Father Thomas relates to the case where application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been allowed and it has been held by the Full Bench that revision is not maintainable at the instance of proposed accused.

7. In the case Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2011 Crl. Law Journal 2278 though the matter was that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and when revision came before learned Single Judge for decision, he was of the view that the accused has no locus standi to challenge an order passed, and an order directing investigation is purely interlocutory in nature in view of statutory bar contain under section 397(2) of the Code the said order was not reviseable. However in the case of Ajay Malviya V. State of U.P. and others 2000(41) Allahabad Law Journal 2730; in which has been held by Division Bench that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a judicial order. Hence any FIR registered on the basis cannot be challenged by means of writ petition, learned Single Judge raised doubts about the correctness of the decision of Division Bench Ajay Malviya V. State of U.P. and others and the matter was referred before the Larger Bench. While referring the matter to the Larger Bench, learned Single Judge formulated following questions for consideration:-

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

B. Whether an order made under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under Subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

C. Whether the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P. and Ors.(XLI) 2000 ACC 435, that as an order made under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R. registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is correct?

8. While answering the three questions the Full Bench has held in para 65 is that;

65. A. The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.

B. An order made under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred unde