ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973(hereinafter referred to as ..... "the Code") is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 12/12/2019, passed by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No. 396/2019, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision as not maintainable, preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04/05/2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Complaint Case No.0/2018 dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Code before the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Indore against the respondents alleging that respondent No. 1 has falsely implicated his brother - Abdul Majid in Criminal Case No. 167/2015 for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (n) and 506 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of the Code vide order dated 04/05/2019 and fixed the matter for recording the statement of petitioner under Section 200 of the Code.

3. The validity of the aforesaid order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a criminal revision, but the learned Revisional Court/Sessions Judge dismissed the revision holding that the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of the Code is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision against the said order is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/12/2019, passed by the learned 13th ASJ, Indore in CRR. No.396/2019, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12/12/2019 passed by the learned Revisional Court is illegal, incorrect and impropriety and against the facts of the case. The learned courts below did not take into consideration the various documents submitted by the present petitioner alongwith the application. The learned court below erred in holding that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. rejecting the application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision against the said order is not maintainable. Counsel further submits to quash the orders passed by the Courts below. It is further submitted that the case should be remanded back to the revisional court to decide the revision afresh as it is maintainable.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Section 156(3) of the Code is in Chapter XII while Section 200 , including Section 202, falls in Chapter XV.

7. In the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & others v. V.

Narayana Reddy & others (AIR 1976 SC 1672), a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court held thus in paragraph no.17 as under:

"17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption:

"Information to the Police and their powers to investigate";

while Section 202 Cr.WP 159/14 & others is in Chapter XV which bears the heading "Of complaints to Magistrates". The power It order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the pol