Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1102 of 2022

Appellant :- Samay Deen And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the order dated 10.01.2022

passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Criminal Case

No.535 of 2021 (Minakshi vs. Samay Deen and others) whereby learned Court

below has allowed the application of respondent no.2, filed under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C.

2. At the outset, learned A.G.A has raised preliminary objection that appellants,

being the proposed accused, have no locus standi to challenge the impugned

order and in this regard he has relied upon the judgement passed by the Full

Bench of this Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and

Another, reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB).

3. The Father Thomas (Supra) has considered the three questions and the first

question was as follows :-

"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?"

4. After consideration, the aforesaid question was answered in following terms:-

"32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is abundantly clear that the prospective

accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused.

The first question is answered accordingly."

5. In view of the above, the issue is well settled that order of the learned

Magistrate made in exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the

police to register and investigate, is not open to be challenged by a person

against whom neither cognizance has been made nor any process issued.

6. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the

judgement of Father Thomas (Supra) and, therefore, the challenge to the

impugned order at the instance of the appellants is not maintainable.

7. Accordingly, this application is rejected for want of locus standi.

Order Date :- 24.2.2022

Rishabh

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]

Digitally signed by RISHABH

KUMAR

Date: 2022.03.04 17:18:13 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad