- (1.) IN a referring order dated 13 December 2013, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by the Full Bench: "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." In the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and Anr., : (2011) 1 UPLBEC 1, one of the three questions which were formulated for consideration was as follows: "(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 -
(2.) THIS question has been answered by the Full Bench as follows: "B. An order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub -section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
(3.) THE issue is, thus, squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench. With respect, the learned Single Judge was not justified in making a reference on a matter which is covered by a direct decision of the Full Bench which, in turn, is based on law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for this Bench to answer the reference, since the position in law has been settled by the judgment of the Full Bench in Father Thomas' case (supra). This criminal revision along with Criminal Revision No. 3410 of 2013 shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposal.;