Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.—The reference to the Full Bench

The reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned upon two orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court. By the first of those orders, the following question was referred for consideration:

“Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397.”

Subsequently, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while noticing the above reference, referred two additional questions for consideration by a larger Bench:

“(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397; and

(2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a necessary party and is required to be heard before a final order is passed.”

2. The Full Bench decision in Father Thomas

Before we enter upon the issues which are raised in this