Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party and the learned A.G.A. The revisionist has moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate which was allowed by the court on 13.7.2001 and the concerned police station was directed to register and investigate the case in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Crl. Revision No. 208 of 2001 was filed in the court of Session which was allowed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge on 15.9.2001 setting aside the order 13.7.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
(2.) THE only argument of the learned counsel for revisionist is that a revision on behalf of the prospective accused was not maintainable. Learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that proceedings of complaint with regard to the same incident are pending and in case the revision is allowed then a case shall be registered and they might have to go to jail. Learned counsel for opposite party was inquired about the legal position then he was unable to bring to the notice of the court any law which mandates the maintainability of the revision on behalf of the prospective accused against the order passed against them on an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(3.) LAW is settled on the point that a revision on behalf of the prospective accused against an order passed on application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It has been so held in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (69) ACC 1003. In view of the settled legal position, this revision is hereby allowed and the order dated 15.9.2001 passed in Crl. Revision No. 208 of 2001 is hereby set aside.;