MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J. - (1.) THESE two criminal revisions have been preferred against the orders passed by the Magistrates on the applications moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Since a common question is involved in both the revisions, they are taken up together. In the first case, the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 3.11.2013 treated the application of the applicant as complaint, where the complainant had alleged against Opp. Party offences of criminal house trespass, mishandling and committing rape on her under threat. In the second case, complainant Radhika Devi alleged against the Opp. Party the offences of cheating and forging of documents in respect of agricultural land, but The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri by order dated 20.9.2013 rejected the application.
(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. makes preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision against these orders on the strength of this Court's Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2011) 1 U.P. L.B.E.C. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionists, on the other hand, press for admission of and full fledged hearing on the revisions. Thus, we are called upon to see if the revisions arising from the orders under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are barred in the light of father Thomas Case ( Supra).
(3.) THE Full Bench was constituted to consider and decide three questions referred to by Hon'ble J.C. Gupta J, as His Lordship then was, and those three questions were; (A) Whether the order of the Magistrate made in exercise of power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register and investigate it is open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process has been issued? (B) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such an order is barred under sub section (2) of section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973? (C) Whether the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2000 (41) A.C.C. 435 (D.B.) that an order made under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to revision, no writ petition for quashing of first information report registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is correct? ;