Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) THE case has been taken up in the revised list. None is present for the revisionist.
(2.) HEARD arguments of Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and AGA for the State and perused the material on record. By means of this Revision, order dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in criminal misc. application no. 17 of 2002 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Ram Dhani and others) under section 462, 466, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC has been challenged by the prospective accused. By the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application of Smt. Maya Devi under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and S.O. P.S. Robertsganj has been directed to investigate the case after registration of the FIR.
(3.) AT the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA that revision against the impugned order is not legally maintainable as the prospective accused has no right to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing investigation after restoration of the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is that on the FIR being lodged in pursuance of the impugned order, the accused persons could seek remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the FIR and they have no right to challenge the impugned order either in Revision or in the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA, I agree that prospective accused can not challenge the order passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. allowing the application and directing investigation by the police.;