Accused cannot file revision against order of investigation passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure. When the officer in charge of the police station and superintendent of police have refused to lodge the FIR then the victim approach the court under Section 156(3) crpc. The Magistrate may order such an investigation. He directs the police to register an FIR and investigate the case.
In Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. and others, AIR 2014 SC 187 the Supreme Court has held that registration of first information report is mandatory if information discloses commission of cognisable offence. Thus victim of crime invokes his right to register FIR ang investigate the crime under section 156(3) CrPC.
Order under section 156(3) is an interlocutory order
The order under section 156(3) is interlocutory in nature. When the Magistrate recalls a report from the police station or directs the police officer to start investigation under section 156(3), it does not adjudicate any legal right of parties. Interlocutory order means an order which is not a final decision of the court. In Atul Pandey alias Param Pragyan vs State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court has held that interlocutory orders are purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights, or the liabilities of the parties.
Revision against order of investigation
Section 397(2) clearly states that “The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.” Therefore, accused cannot file revision petition against interlocutory order. In Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (72) ACC 564, High Court Allahabad holds that revision is not maintainable against order of investigation u/s 156(3) crpc.
Moreover the accused has no right to contest the application filed under section 156(3) crpc. If the Magistrate passes any order it does not affect the right of accused. He has other remedies to protect himself from mala-fide investigation.
Thus, accused cannot invoke section 397 crpc and file a revision against such order. He can also not move a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226, constitution of India for quashing of investigation. Order u/s 156(3) is only a direction to investigate against prospective accused. The prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge such a direction. He can challenge it court takes cognisance or issues process (summon or warrant) against him.