By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 31.05.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2011, Umesh vs. State and another, whereby said court has set aside the order passed by the Magistrate under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., directing the Police to register and investigate the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the various case laws referred by them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., was moved by the present petitioner Virendra Kumar Saini (registered as Criminal Miscellaneous application no. 27 of 2011) requesting the Magistrate to direct the Police to register the case. It was alleged in the application that Tata Indica car bearing registration no. UK08T0630 model 2009, was purchased by the petitioner from respondent no. 2 Umesh Kumar for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. And in respect of that deal a cheque no. 0226022 dated 29.06.2010, for an amount of Rs. 85,000/- was given towards part of consideration for the vehicle. It was alleged in the application that the respondent no. 2 committed cheating by getting dishonoured the aforesaid cheque and taking vehicle back into his possession.

4. The Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, on 07.03.2011, directed the Magistrate (sic, Police) to register the case. Aggrieved by said order, respondent no. 2 Umesh Kumar filed criminal revision no. 89 of 2011, before the Sessions Judge, Hardwar. After hearing the parties, the revisional court allowed the revision vide its order dated 31.05.2011, and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has no power to entertain the revision against the order passed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisional court has rightly set aside

the order passed by the Magistrate. As such, the only question before this Court is:-

Whether the revision is maintainable against the order passed by the Magistrate under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, directing the police to register the case?

6. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed in the case of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P., 2011, CRLJ 2278 (Full Bench of Allahabad High Court) in which similar question was dealt, and answer given by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court is that no revision is maintainable against the order passed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on the ground that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of proceedings under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is also held in the aforesaid case by the Allahabad High Court that power of Superintendent of Police to direct to his subordinate officer under section 156 (1) Cr.P.C., to register the crime is

similar to that of the power exercised by the Magistrate under section 156'(3) Cr.P.C. Allahabad High Court has further observed that accused has no right of participation during the course of the investigation ti1I investigation culminates in filing the final report or charge sheet under

section 173 of the Code.

7. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent no. 2 1earned counsel referred to the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram & another (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 801 and Amamath Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1977, S.C.2185. In the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha (supra) it is held by the Apex Court that though the accused has no right to participate, unless the process is issued, but in the case before the Supreme Court, the Magistrate after rejecting the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had proceeded, treating the application as criminal complaint under section 190( 1) of Cr. P. C., and cognizance was taken, as such the revision against the said order was maintainable before the High Court. In case of A