Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Orders that merely direct investigation without detailed reasoning or are passed in a casual manner are also held to be non-revisable ["GURNAM SINGH vs DAYAL SINGH & ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion
In criminal proceedings, complainants often seek police investigation before a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense. But what happens when the Magistrate refuses an application under Section 156(3) CrPC? A common query arises: whether revision is maintainable against order refusing application under sec 156 crpc? This question is crucial for aggrieved parties navigating the Indian criminal justice system.
Typically, such refusals deny the complainant a preliminary police probe into cognizable offenses, pushing the matter toward a private complaint trial. Understanding revisional remedies under Section 397 CrPC can prevent injustice. This post explores the legal position, judicial precedents, exceptions, and practical steps, drawing from key rulings. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Yes, revision is maintainable against an order refusing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, as such an order is not interlocutory in nature. An aggrieved party, usually the complainant, can challenge it under Section 397 CrPC before the Sessions Court or High Court. Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2023)Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 101
Key rulings affirm this:- Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2023) states: If an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected or it has been converted into a complaint, aggrieved party can prefer revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Order regarding rejection of such application or conversion of application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. into a complaint is not an interlocutory order.- Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 101 echoes: If an application under Section 156(3) CrPC has been rejected or it has been converted into a complaint, the aggrieved party can prefer revision under Section 397 CrPC - It has also been held that an order regarding rejection of such application or conversion of application under Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint is not an interlocutory order.- Raja Radha Mohan Srivastava @ Lalla VS State of U. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 3479 adds: The rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to criminal revision and the prospective accused is entitled to an opportunity to be heard.
These orders substantively affect the complainant's right to investigation at the pre-cognizance stage, distinguishing them from mere procedural steps barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.
Section 156(3) CrPC empowers Magistrates to order police investigation into cognizable offenses before taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC. Refusals determine substantive rights, making them revisable. Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2023)
However, applications must meet procedural safeguards. Courts emphasize supporting them with a sworn affidavit to curb misuse, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava. Without it, refusals may be upheld. Sau. Ranjana VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1787 notes applications under Sec. 156(3) must be supported by affidavit. Similarly, a case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act quashed orders lacking affidavits, remanding for fresh consideration. GURNAM SINGH vs DAYAL SINGH & ORS
Magistrates must apply judicial mind, recording reasons for refusal to avoid revisional interference. RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2006 Supreme(Guj) 112
While refusals are revisable by complainants, orders directing investigation are often deemed interlocutory, barring revision—especially by accused at pre-cognizance stage.
PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2817 highlights conflict, urging larger bench review for refusals: The Hon’ble Full Bench ruled out the right to revision against the order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.... requests further consideration by a Larger Bench for rejections. This prevents abuse while securing justice.
Other sources reinforce: Revision dismissed where application lacked affidavit or involved civil disputes misrepresented as criminal. Vinod Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2141 In fraud cases, courts probe if allegations warrant criminal probe or are civil in nature. Ravi Shankar VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 886
Revision isn't absolute:- Accused's Locus: No revision against orders allowing 156(3) investigation (interlocutory). CHANDAN VS STATE OF U P - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 2834FATHER THOMAS VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 0 Supreme(All) 4368Nishu Wadhwa VS Siddharth Wadhwa - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 3288- Post-FIR: Once FIR registered, revision limited to jurisdictional errors. Arun P. Gidh VS Chandraprakash Singh - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 567- Civil Disputes: Purely civil matters disguised as criminal won't sustain. Ravi Shankar VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 886The court emphasized that disputes of a civil nature should not be misrepresented as criminal offences.- Alternative Remedies: Exhaust Section 154(1)/(3) before 156(3). If revision fails, consider Section 482 CrPC sparingly or writs. Sakiri Vasu VS State of U. P. and others - 2007 8 Supreme 226XYZ VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 7 Supreme 177 (Sakiri Vasu: Magistrate powers wide for proper investigation).- Delay/Jurisdiction: Writs under Article 226 discretionary if delayed. RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Shantilal Jethalal Shah VS STATE - 1997 Supreme(Guj) 169 clarifies: Post-cognizance, Magistrates can't order 156(3) investigation.
Courts prefer sequential remedies:1. Section 154(1)/(3) CrPC (police/FIR registration).2. Section 156(3) application with affidavit.3. Revision under 397/401 CrPC if refused.4. Section 482 or writs if needed. Sakiri Vasu VS State of U. P. and others - 2007 8 Supreme 226
Recommendations for Complainants:- File revision promptly before Sessions Judge/High Court.- Attach affidavit detailing prior remedies exhaustion.- Highlight Magistrate's non-application of mind or lack of reasons.- If denied, escalate cautiously to avoid 'forum shopping'.
Magistrates: Issue speaking orders to minimize revisions. RAJ PAL AND ORS vs STATE TH.HOME DEPTT.AND ORS
This framework ensures access to justice without process abuse. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References (select excerpts):1. Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2023), Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 101, Raja Radha Mohan Srivastava @ Lalla VS State of U. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 3479 – Core holdings on revisability.2. PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2817, Premwati VS State of U. P. - 2014 Supreme(All) 3058 – On interlocutory debates.3. Other cases on affidavits, civil nature: Sau. Ranjana VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1787, Ravi Shankar VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 886.
#CrPC156, #CriminalRevision, #Section1563
The order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue on merit inasmuch as that no right of the either party is adjudicated by such order for the purpose of the suit and, therefore, such order is ... Moga vide which application for appointment of Local Commissioner was dismissed. [2]. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sri Whether reportable Yes/No Mohmed Atik 2017.07.13 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of ....
under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. ... Initially, learned Magistrate had passed an order to the effect "put up for verification" on the application filed by non-applicant No.3 under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. ... Washim thereby directing the concerned police station to investigate the cognizable offences disclosed by the application filed under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure#HL_END....
Cr.P.C. ... the order is speaking? ... the order is reportable? ... This petition is not found maintenable and the same is also does not come to the aid of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156
... ( 8 ) THE complainant had, in the complaint, requested the Court to order investigation under Sec. 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ... It is further held that the magistrate shall record a short order disclosing the reason why he needs investigation under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through police agency and why he is unable to try himself. ... Shah and Anr. , reported in 1986 (2) GLR 643 wherein this Court h....
This takes the victim/informant to the Magistrate, who may order for registration of F.I.R. and investigation into the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which provides as under. “Sec. 156. ... the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.” ... reject the application moved before it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. ... Now the point to be tackled at this juncture is that whether#HL_E....
Order 47 Rule 7, C.P.C. ... The rejection of the review application whether on merits or otherwise is not is was maintenable. ... on merits, the appeal may not the review application as not maintenable, the appeal span style="font-family:Courier
Under Sec.202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through police agency and why he is unable to try himself. ... 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ... whether process should be issued or not U/S.204 of the Code or whether....
for investigation under Sec.156(3). ... ... The power to order police investigation under Sec.156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Sec.202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. ... ... On the facts available, it is clear that the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the complaint for deciding, whether or not there were sufficient grounds for proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code, but had only orde....
the District Judge of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam (Exercising manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec ... In view of the settlement reached as Special Court (District Court) Udagamandalam and the said Court dismissed the petition, as not maintenable ... Memo shall form part of the order. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.
The learned Judge has also directed for further investigation of the case in exercise of powers under Sec. 156 (3) read with Sec. 173 (8)-Crpc. ... ... ( 1 ) THE learned Special judge, Bharuch, by his order dated 22. 10. 1996, while refusing to grant b summary, has taken cognizance of Sec. 191 (b) of Crpc read with Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1988. ... ... ( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the lear....
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 334 of 2022 refusing to order registration of case against the opposite parties on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant-Ravi Shankar.
5. On the other side, Mr. P.K. Pancholi, learned advocate for respondent No.2, strongly and strenuously opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and submitted that respondent No.2 has filed his affidavitinreply. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, has not exercised any judicial powers but on presentation of the complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C directed the C.I.D (Crime) and Railways to initiate the said complaint under the powers vested in the trial Court under Section 156(3) of the Code. That this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is no....
(iii) Respondent No.1 had no privity to the transaction and permission obtained under section 165(6) of M.P. Land Revenue Code. (iv) No prima facie case is madeout for issuing direction under section 156(3) CrPC, and therefore, the impugned order passed under section 156(3) CrPC is bad in law. (vi) Directions issued by this Court in case of Ramyash Tiwari (supra), and also a direction issued in Writ Petition No.4587/2016 was not brought in the knowledge of learned Magistrate. (v) The Magistrate failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Miscellaneous Crimi....
1. In a referring order dated 13 December 2013, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by the Full Bench: "Whether an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C." In the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2011) 1 UPLBEC 1 , one of the three questions which were formulated for consideration was as follows: "(B) Whether an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlo....
Record of this case be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice with the request that if it is found proper and expedient the matter be referred to a Larger Bench for consideration of the question, “Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 379 Cr.P.C.” The maintainability of the revisions filed shall abide by the judgment of the Court after reference.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
