- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the delay has occasioned because of his fault hence it is condoned. Office of this Court is directed to allot a regular number to this revision. The revisionist is aggrieved by an order dated 7-8-2006 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2006 (Girija Shanker v. State of U. P. and Ors. ). The matter is that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi as Criminal Case No. 113 of 2006 (Angad Ram v. Bholanath and Ors.) which was allowed on 27-7-2006 by directing the police to register FIR and investigate the same. The proposed accused challenged the said order in revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2006 (Girija Shanker v. State of U. P. and Ors. ). The Sessions Judge entertained the revision and vide impugned order dated 7-8-2006 allowed it and quash the order dated 27-7- 2006 passed by A. C. J. M. directing the police to register the case and investigate the same. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist at a great length as well as learned AGA. The revision filed before the Additional Sessions Judge against an order dated 27-7-2006 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was not maintainable as the aforesaid order passed by A. C. J. M. , Bhadohi was a pre-cognizance order and no proceeding had taken place before him. It has been held by the Apex Court in 1977 SCC (Cr.) 585 Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, that so long as the accused does not appear in the trial Court after he has been summoned, no proceeding taken place in his respect. Since no proceeding in respect of a person has taken place under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, he had no right to maintain the revision before the Sessions Judge, Gyanpur. It is absolutely clear that an order under Section 156 (3) is an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable against the aforesaid order at the behest of a proposed accused. I may remind that the scope of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the view of the Supreme Court is to intimate the police to exercise their plenary power of investigation under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C.
(3.) THE aforesaid matter had come up before this bench in Criminal Revision No. 5729 of 2006, Rakesh Puri and Anr. v. State, where in it has been held by this Court that the aforesaid order under Section 156 (3) is an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable. Consequently the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge, Gyanpur is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is set aside and the order passed by A. C. J. M. , Bhadohi on 27-7-2006 is hereby restored. I have not issued notices in this revision to the person against whom an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed namely Bholanath, Guddu, Girija Shanker and Shashi for the simple reason that at the stage of under Section 156 (3), the aforesaid persons have no right to be heard. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. W. N. Chaddha, 1993 SCC (Cr.) 1171, in paragraph 98 as follows: " (98) If prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to be given to an accused in every criminal case before taking any action against him, such a procedure would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation as lifeless, absurd and self-defeating. Further, the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the procedure of investigation does not attract such a course in the absence of any statutory obligation "to the contrary. " (Emphasis supplied and mine);