AI Overview...
-
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Interlocutory Order
Multiple sources confirm that orders passed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are considered interlocutory in nature. Such orders typically involve directing police to register FIRs or investigate cases. For instance, sources Gurtej Singh @ Teji VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana, JAGANNATH VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhry VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, and Premwati VS State of U. P. - Allahabad emphasize that these are interlocutory and generally not revisable.
References: Gurtej Singh @ Teji VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana, JAGANNATH VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhry VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Premwati VS State of U. P. - Allahabad -
Revisability and Bar Against Revision
The consensus across the sources is that revision against orders under Section 156(3) is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. For example, Lakhimpur Finvest Co. Ltd, Mela Road, Lakhimpur Kheri VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, and Nishu Wadhwa VS Siddharth Wadhwa - Delhi highlight that courts have consistently held such orders as interlocutory, thus not subject to revision. The Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas case (2011) further affirms this principle.
References: Lakhimpur Finvest Co. Ltd, Mela Road, Lakhimpur Kheri VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Nishu Wadhwa VS Siddharth Wadhwa - Delhi, PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad -
Legal Precedents and Judicial Viewpoints
Courts have consistently maintained that orders under Section 156(3) do not culminate in finality and are meant to facilitate police investigation, hence their classification as interlocutory. The case law, including the Father Thomas judgment, supports the view that such orders cannot be challenged by revision, emphasizing their procedural nature.
References: Premwati VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhry VS State of U. P. - Allahabad -
Exceptions and Specific Circumstances
Some sources, such as Avinash VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes and CHANDRAKANT KESHAVLAL SHAH VS STATE - Gujarat, discuss rare instances where orders under Section 156(3) might be challenged, such as when there is suppression of material facts or when the order is made without proper jurisdiction. However, generally, the orders remain interlocutory and non-revisable.
References: Avinash VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes, CHANDRAKANT KESHAVLAL SHAH VS STATE - Gujarat
Analysis and Conclusion
Orders issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are uniformly recognized as interlocutory and non-final in nature. Consequently, the remedy of revision against such orders is barred by Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., as established through judicial precedents and statutory interpretation. This ensures that police investigations initiated through such orders proceed without interference from revisional courts, maintaining procedural efficiency.
References: Gurtej Singh @ Teji VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana, JAGANNATH VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhry VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Premwati VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Lakhimpur Finvest Co. Ltd, Mela Road, Lakhimpur Kheri VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Nishu Wadhwa VS Siddharth Wadhwa - Delhi, PREMWATI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Avinash VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes, CHANDRAKANT KESHAVLAL SHAH VS STATE - Gujarat
Search Results for "156 3 Cr P C Interlocutory Order"
2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2042 • India - Punjab and Haryana
HARSH BUNGER
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Interlocutory order - Petitioners challenged the order directing FIR registration ... under Section 156(3) was interlocutory and thereby non-revisable. ... , arguing maintainability of revision which was dismissed - It was established that order under Section 156(3) is interlocutory and ... rejecting an application under Sec....
2014 0 Supreme(All) 1298 • India - Allahabad
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, D. K. ARORA, DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA
156 (3) is an interlocutory order—And remedy of a revision against such is barred under Section 397 (2)—Whether an order made under ... passed by a Magistrate on an application under Section 156 (3) is an interlocutory order—A prospective accused is entitled to be ... rejecting application under Section 156 (3) for registration of FIR and investigation by police is not an interlocutory#H....
2007 0 Supreme(All) 2923 • India - Allahabad
VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, not amenable ... (3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, not amenable to revisional power of the Court. ... Revision - Criminal Procedure - Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 156(3 ... From the nature of the ....
2014 0 Supreme(All) 3058 • India - Allahabad
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SUNIL AMBWANI, VIKRAM NATH
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Interlocutory Order - The Full Bench held that an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory ... Issues: The issue was whether an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and whether the remedy ... made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutor....
• India - Crimes
A.B.CHAUDHARI, INDIRA K.JAIN
by Magistrate u/s 156(3) is an interlocutory order — Investigation pursuant to order u/s 156(3) CrPC is not controlled by Magistrate ... and Magistrate has further nothing to do and proceedings u/s 156(3) CrPC gets terminated — Order u/s 156(3) CrPC is not interlocutory ... Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 156(3) and 20....
2020 0 Supreme(All) 583 • India - Allahabad
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
cognizance has been taken nor any process issued and an order made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and ... cognizance has been taken nor any process issued and an order made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and ... Case by which Special Judge, SC/ST Act, has allowed the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 156(3....
2014 0 Supreme(All) 2200 • India - Allahabad
ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II
. is an interlocutory order and not revisable. ... Finding of the Court: The court found that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and thus not revisable. ... Citing legal precedents, the court held that an order on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not revisable. ... As the impugned order is an order passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it ....
2017 0 Supreme(Del) 3288 • India - Delhi
MUKTA GUPTA
dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against ... Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154, 155, 156(3), 177 to 184 - Offence - Magistrate - Territorial ... jurisdiction - Magistrate cannot pass directions under Sections 155 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. to an officer in-charge of a police station ... rejecting an Application under Section 156(3#HL....
2013 0 Supreme(All) 2817 • India - Allahabad
MUSHAFFEY AHMAD
passed under Section 156 (3) is an interlocutory order—Remedy of revision against such an order is barred by Section 397 (2) requests ... passed under Section 156 (3)—Conclusion of Full Bench (Father Thomas case 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB) that order ... Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 156 (3), 154 (1), 36, 190 and 200—FIR—Application for—Rejection of—Revision against—Maintainability ... ... (B) Whether an #HL_STA....
2001 0 Supreme(Guj) 438 • India - Gujarat
D.C.SRIVASTAVA
kept in dark — Orders under Secs. 156(3), 200 and 202, CrPC are interlocutory orders — Impugned order under Sec. 156(3) and its ... recall order being interlocutory orders, cannot be challenged in revision under Sec. 397(2) — No bar under Sec. 362 to review the ... — Revision — Recall of his own order under Sec. 156(3) by CJM — Suppression of material facts by complainant — Court was intentionally....
Filter by Legal Phrase
