Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, was seized of several criminal writ petitions and applications challenging orders passed by Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the police to conduct investigation. The lead petition, Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014, along with connected matters, was filed by various petitioners including public servants and private individuals against the State of Maharashtra and original complainants. The core legal issue centered on the nature of an order under Section 156(3): whether it is an interlocutory order, and consequently, whether a revision under Section 397 or Section 401 of the Code lies against it. The petitioners argued that such orders are interlocutory because they merely direct investigation and do not finally decide any rights, relying on a Single Judge decision in Dr. Shriram Mukundrao Kalyankar v. State of Maharashtra (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2484), which held that revision against an order under Section 156(3) was not maintainable. The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge's reasoning was that the order is not one issuing process but only one directing investigation. The Court examined the statutory provisions and the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedural history shows that due to uncertainty created by the Single Judge's view, parties directly approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction and under Section 482 of the Code. The matters were clubbed and referred to a Division Bench to authoritatively settle the legal position. The judgment, reserved on 19.10.2015 and pronounced on 21.10.2015, does not contain the final operative part in the provided text, leaving the ultimate decision and ratio decidendi unmentioned in this extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Interlocutory Order - Order under Section 156(3) - The Court considered whether an order directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an interlocutory order, thereby barring revision under Section 397(2). The matter was referred to a Division Bench to resolve divergent views as a Single Judge had held that revision was not maintainable against such an order. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order made by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Police to make investigation would be an interlocutory order? If no, whether remedy of revision under Section 397 or Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would lie?
Law Points
- Order under Section 156(3) of CrPC directing police to investigate is not an order issuing process
- Interlocutory order bars revision under Section 397(2) CrPC
- Remedy of revision may be available if order is not interlocutory
