A revisional court cannot quash an FIR registered upon a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., rendering revisions post-FIR registration non-maintainable.

1. Heard.

2. RULE.

3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

4. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2021, allowing the criminal revision and thereby setting aside the order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, issuing direction to the Police Officer to carry out investigation as per Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

5. The facts leading to the present petition in short are that, the petitioner herein who involved in the money lending business filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506, on default made by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make the payment of loan outstanding against them.

6. The learned JMFC, thereupon, on 12.11.2019 issued direction to the Police Officer to investigate the matter as per Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereupon, filed a criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions, Judge, Chandrapur, which was withdrawn by them on the ground that the police, in the meantime, registered the offence.

7. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter filed a criminal Writ Petition No.1121 of 2019 which was also sought to be withdrawn on 27.01.2021 with liberty to file criminal revision raising challenge to the order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the learned JMFC. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty as prayed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 accordingly, filed the criminal revision No.05 of 2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, allowed the same and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No.737 of 2019. Hence, this writ petition.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State/respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2, though served.

10. During the pendency of this application, the respondent No.3 expired, hence, his name was deleted.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the revision application was withdrawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on registration of FIR, because once the FIR is registered, the only remedy is to seek quashment of FIR under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

12. It is submitted that thereafter though the writ petition was filed it was withdrawn and again Criminal Revision No.05 of 2021 was filed. It is therefore, submitted that the criminal revision is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that where an order made under sub-Section 3 of Section 156 culminates into registration of FIR, the Revisional Court is powerless to pass an order of quashing the FIR. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.05.2016 passed in the case of Kailash Dattatraya Jadhav and another vs. State of Maharashtra through Sakinaka Police Station (Criminal Application No.152 of 2015).

14. On the other hand, the learned APP supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court and prays for