Case Note & Summary
A batch of criminal writ petitions and applications came before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, raising a common question of law regarding the nature of an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners/applicants had invoked the constitutional and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to challenge orders of Magistrates directing police investigation under Section 156(3). The core controversy was whether such an order is interlocutory and whether a revision under Section 397 or 401 CrPC is maintainable against it. The petitioners relied on a previous Single Judge decision of the same High Court in Dr. Shriram Mukundrao Kalyankar v. State of Maharashtra (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2484), which had held that a revision challenging an order under Section 156(3) is not maintainable because it is merely a direction for investigation and not an order issuing process. The Division Bench noted that the reasoning in the earlier judgment was limited to that distinction. The Court framed the precise question and examined the text of Section 156 in its entirety. The judgment, however, remained incomplete as the upload provided only the initial paragraphs and did not contain the final analysis, decision, or directions. The Court had reserved judgment on 19.10.2015 and pronounced it on 21.10.2015, but the remaining portion was not included. Thus, the ultimate determination on the interlocutory nature and maintainability of revision was not available in the extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order made by the Magistrate u/s 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 u/s 397 or Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would lie ?
