According to the Delhi High Court, a revision petition filed in opposition to an order mandating the registration of an FIR is maintainable because it is not an interlocutory order. The court declared that the accused had a significant right to be heard.
The filing of an FIR, according to Justice Jasmeet Singh, impacts an accused person's freedom and fundamental rights. The court noted that the person may be called in for questioning and detained without a warrant if there are claims of cognizable offenses.
Because the accused has a valuable right to be heard, Justice Singh stated, "an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against such an order will be maintainable."
An application under Section 156(3) CrPC
The remarks were made by the court as it rejected a motion made by Ravinder Lal Airi to reinstate an order made by the ACMM court on January 1, 2020, that ordered the filing of an FIR in response to his application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Sessions Court's ruling that the revision petition against the ACMM order was maintainable and referred the case back to the ACMM court for a further hearing and reasoned judgment was challenged by Airi.
According to the petitioner's attorney, the decision requiring the filing of the FIR is an interlocutory order.
In Parmar Ramesh Chandra Ganpatray & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., the Gujarat High Court held that a magistrate's order rejecting an application for the registration of a case is not an "interlocutory order" and is therefore subject to the criminal revision remedy.
The attorney also cited the Allahabad High Court ruling in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Ors., in which it was determined that the Magistrate's order for an investigation was purely interlocutory and that it was not possible to get around the prohibition under Section 397(2) CrPC against considering a criminal revision.
A co-ordinate bench decision in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr., which held that an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and that a revision petition against it is maintainable, was cited by Justice Singh in disagreement with the two judgments.
According to the court, the ACMM did not take the ATR into account. The magistrate's order does not show that "thought was applied as to why and how the ATR has been reviewed and the reasons as to why the learned MM has not agreed with the judgment provided by the IO that no cognizable crime has been made out."
"The learned Sessions Court in its revisional authority rightly analyzed this issue. The petition is dismissed because, in my opinion, it has no merit, the judge declared.
For the petitioner, attorney Dhruv Dwivedi made an appearance. The state was represented by ASC Rahul Tyagi.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"