Revision against order of investigation passed u/s 156(3) crpc

by | 11 Feb, 2021 | Latest Advice Online

Home | Advice | Latest Advice Online | Revision against order of investigation passed u/s 156(3) crpc

Accused cannot file revision against order of investigation passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure. Section 156(3) crpc empowers the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case. When police do not register the FIR the aggrieved person can invoke section 156(3) crpc. He can approach the judicial magistrate for recording of his FIR.

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 provision of section 154 crpc makes it clear that recording of FIR is mandatory under section 154 crpc. Officer in charge of the police station (SHO) cannot refuse to record the FIR.

Order under section 156(3)

When SHO refuses to register FIR under section 154(1) crpc the aggrieved person can approach the SP u/s 154(3) crpc. Superintendent of Police (SP) have power under section 154(3) to direct an investigation. However, the investigation will commence only after recording of FIR. When a person aggrieved by refusal on the part of SHO or SP then he can move an application u/s 156(3) crpc.

If judicial magistrate finds that a cognisable offence has been committed then he can direct investigation under section 156(3) crpc. Then SHO will lodge the FIR and start an investigation. By and large, direction to investigate is an interlocutory order. Magistrate does not take cognisance at this stage. He can pass such order without examining the truth of information.

Revision against order of investigation

The accused person cannot move a revision against the order of investigation passed u/s 156(3) crpc. Provision of section 397(2) crpc does not allow revision against inter locutory order. An order under section 156(3) is inter locutory order so, it is not subject to revision. 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.

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 FIR. 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 after taking cognisance by court or issuance of process against him.

Other advice you might like

Whether sanction is necessary for retired employee

Whether prosecution is necessary for retired employee? A loan was sanctioned in August 2012. CBI admitted the case, employee retired in 31st march 2013. The bank filed complaint with CBI without charging sanctioning authority in 1.6 2017. CBI filed case on 30.07.2019...

Conviction based on handwriting expert is not valid

Court convicted my brother for the offence of forgery. Conviction is solely based on handwriting expert. His evidence is the main reason of conviction. There is no other evidence which proves that he has committed the crime of forgery. His wife filed FIR against him...

Kanoonirai established in 2014, provides legal assistence through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54