Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed by a Magistrate directing the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court reaffirmed that such an order is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revision at the instance of the proposed accused.
The revisionists, Nahni and five others, had challenged the order dated November 3, 2023, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Case No. 416/12 of 2023 (Manju v. Nahni and Others). The Magistrate had allowed the application filed by the opposite party under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., directing the police to register and investigate the case.
Justice Chawan Prakash delivered the judgment on December 9, 2025. The Court relied entirely on the binding precedent laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and Another (2010).
The Full Bench in Father Thomas had examined three critical questions, including the maintainability of a revision petition against an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated the Full Bench’s categorical finding:
“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 not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.”
Furthermore, the judgment reaffirmed the Full Bench’s conclusion regarding the nature of such an order:
“An order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, and the remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
In light of this settled legal position, the High Court concluded that the criminal revision filed by the proposed accused was not maintainable. The Court observed:
“Since no criminal revision lies against an order passed by the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an FIR, the present revision, filed by the proposed accused/revisionists, is not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Name: Nahni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Chawan Prakash
Date of Judgment: December 9, 2025
Advocate for the Revisionists: Rajesh Kumar Bind
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
