Application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C treated as complaint – Revision Maintainable: Allahabad HC
A Magistrate’s order denying an application under Section 156(3) CrPC or turning it into a complaint is an interlocutory order, according to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, and the aggrieved party may file a revision under Section 397 CrPC in response.
As an alternative remedy, the aggrieved party may file a revision under section 397 CrPC, the court further stated that such a magistrate’s order cannot be contested in a plea brought under Section 482 CrPC.
Ruchi Mittal filed a 482 CrPC petition, asking the Gautam Budh Nagar ACJM-I to reverse its decision to consider her Section 156(3) CrPC petition as a complaint case. The Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma bench dismissed the petition.
…(This court) is of the opinion that a proceeding under Section 482 CrPC against the impugned judgement is not maintainable and the applicant should have chosen a revision before the revisional court, the bench stated as it granted her the freedom to lodge an appropriate revision petition.
In essence, there are ongoing legal cases between the petitioner and her spouse, as well as her in-laws (opposite parties). She then requested the registration of a FIR by making a 156 (3) plea before the magistrate last year, saying that the opposing parties had committed an offence that was punishable by law.
However, the Magistrate handled the application as a complaint instead of issuing the order for an investigation in the case.
She submitted the instant 482 CrPC plea before the High Court to challenge that exact ruling, claiming that transforming Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint would not serve the interests of justice and that since the opposing parties are attorneys, she will not be able to pursue the complaint.
The aggrieved party may request revision under Section 397 CrPC and not a plea under Section 482 CrPC, according to the AGA sitting for the state, if an application under Section 156(3) CrPC has been denied or converted into a complaint.
The judgement in the matter of Atul Pandey @ Param Pragyan Pandey Vs. State of UP and another, rendered by the Allahabad High Court, was cited by the AGA in this regard.
Legal observations
After hearing from the parties and considering the circumstances, the court noted that it had been decided in the Atul Pandey case (supra) that a magistrate’s order treating a S. 156(3) CrPC plea as a complaint cannot be contested in a 482 CrPC plea, but that such orders may be contested by filing a revision under section 397 Cr.P.C.
The court agreed and stated that the petitioner should have sought a revision before the revisional court instead of filing a lawsuit under Section 482 CrPC against the contested order.
In light of this, the Court rejected the plea.
Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg
vs.
State of U.P. and Anothe
