- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA in opposition.
(2.) AN application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C was filed by the respondent Rani Devi before Special Judge (DAA) Kanpur Dehat which was registered as Misc. Case No. 92/12/ 06. The allegations in that application, in thumb nail description, were that the husband of the applicant Rani Devi was abducted by the revisionists and since then he was not traceable. Since after the said abduction her two relatives (Jeth) broke open the locks of her house and looted her belongings. The Special Judge (DAA) found that the cognizable offence is disclosed and hence he ordered, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the police to register and investigate the offences disclosed by his impugned order dated 11-10-2006 which order has been challenged in this revision by the malefactors. An order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is in the nature of an administrative direction given by a Magistrate to the police to exercise their plenary power of investigation under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. after registering the information of cognizable offence whether given orally or in writing under Section 154 (1) Cr. P. C subject to the rider under Section 157 (2) Cr. P. C. Such an order is in the nature of an administrative direction though passed judicially. A prospective accused has got no right to challenge the said order since he has got no right to be heard at that stage. A prospective accused cannot say that the FIR should not be registered against him or that the Magistrate cannot order for such a registration. He has got no right to be heard before he is summoned. Under the Code Of Criminal Procedure there is nothing which provides the right to an accused to be heard before the FIR is registered against him and before he is summoned as an accused. There is nothing in the Code which provides pre FIR registration hearing to an accused as it will amount to pre registration of crime hearing which is not contemplated under the law. In this respect I am fortified by the judgments of the apex Court rendered in 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cr) 462, State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal; 1993 SCC (Cr) 36, Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhari, AIR 1993 SC 1082, Union of India v. W. N. Chadha, 1993 SCC (Cr) 1171. In the present case the application of the respondent did disclose cognizable offence and therefore, the Special Judge was right in ordering for investigation of the same.
(3.) THIS revision is, therefore, meritless and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned within two days. Revision dismissed. .;