The court held the criminal revision not maintainable against an order directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Dismissed as an interlocutory order.
Revision dismissed at the stage of admission for non-maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3960 of 2022
Revisionist :- Naseem And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Priyavrat Tripathi,Ravi Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
Heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
At the very outset, a preliminary objection as to maintainability of this revision is raised.
The revisionists have challenged the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which, the application filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed directing the concerned police station to register a criminal case against the revisionists and to investigate. This is a settled position of law that an order directing registration of case on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory one and the revision is not maintainable as laid down in case of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2011 (72) ACC 564 as reiterated in case of Jagannath Verma vs. State of U.P.; 2014 (8) ADJ 439 by the Full Bench of this Court.
It is suggested that the revisionist may get the kind of relief claimed by him by an alternative remedy viz application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
As the revision is not maintainable, hence, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Order Date :- 30.11.2022 Vik/-
Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.30 17:08:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶8
Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2011 (72) ACC 564
Jagannath Verma vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Jagannath Verma vs. State of U.P.; 2014 (8) ADJ 439
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Naseem And 7 Others
State of U.P.
Jyotsna Sharma J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
