Dismissed

Charan Adhar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024/856/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court held that a challenge to an order directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not maintainable when no FIR has been registered and no process issued against the applicant, following the Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as not maintainable.

Charan Adhar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9792

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 856 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Charan Adhar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishal Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P..C. the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Criminal Case No.26 of 2022, which was an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no.4.

¶8

By means of the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and directed the police to register a case and investigate the same.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection against maintainability of the application on the ground that in the case of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB)] , a Full Bench of this Court was dealing with the following three questions:-

¶10

'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?

¶11

B. Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

¶12

C. Whether the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is correct'?

¶13

The Full Bench answered the questions in the following manner:-

¶14

'The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C Cr.P.C directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.

¶15

B. An order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶16

C. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000 (41) ACC 435 that as an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, and no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is not correct'.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid dictum of Full Bench of this Court, an order passed by the court directing registration of an FIR cannot be challenged by a person who is a proposed accused in the FIR that would be filed against him, without the F.I.R. having actually been filed and any process having been issued against him.

¶18

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Renu/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Charan Adhar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Adhar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Animesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Mukesh Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Nand Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Revisionist Is Minor a Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Sahanur and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Exyternal Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others