“To expect a complainant who suffers from grave social disabilities occasioned by the widespread societal discrimination on grounds of gender and caste, which prevail in our society more than six decades after independence, to effectively prosecute a complaint before the magistrate under Chapter XV of the code, would be to shut our eyes to social reality. The well settled distinction between a police investigation falling within the ambit and purview of Chapter XII and an enquiry of investigation ordered by the magistrate under section 202 have already been noticed earlier following the decision of the Supreme Court in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (Supra). The power of the magistrate under section 202 to postpone the issuance of process and to direct an investigation to be made by a police officer for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, is distinct from an order under section 156(3). This distinction is part of the well settled principle of our law. Hence, in our view, where an order is passed by the magistrate declining to order an investigation under section 156(3), such an order affects the valuable rights of the complainant and is a matter of moment. Access to the remedy of a revision under section 397(1) is not barred since such an order is not an interlocutory order under sub-section(2). Nor can access to statutory remedy of a revision under Section 397(1) be defeated on the ground that the complainant may avail of the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV of the code.”
