Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection

“When allegations disclose a cognizable offence involving murder, denying police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC affects substantial rights and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural step” – Madhya Pradesh High Court slams lower courts for mechanical dismissal

In a significant ruling Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed a revision petition as non-maintainable on the ground that it was directed against an “interlocutory order”. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta held that the order of the Magistrate refusing to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is not a purely interlocutory order, and its challenge by way of revision under Section 397 CrPC is maintainable.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Kanhaiya Jha, a grieving father who alleged that his son was murdered under a criminal conspiracy, and the police failed to act on the complaint. When he approached the Magistrate seeking registration of FIR and investigation under Section 156(3), the Magistrate refused, choosing instead to proceed under Section 200 CrPC. The Sessions Court, in turn, dismissed the revision, holding that the order was interlocutory in nature and not revisable.

Calling this approach “jurisdictionally flawed and contrary to settled law,” the High Court restored the revision and remanded the matter for fresh decision on merits.

“The Magistrate’s refusal to direct investigation in a murder case involving allegations of tampering and conspiracy cannot be termed procedural or inconsequential” – High Court finds rejection of 156(3) CrPC application appealable

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta underscored that in serious cases like alleged murder, procedural powers must be interpreted not as technical hurdles but as tools to advance justice.

“The order passed by the trial court cannot be termed as a purely interlocutory order, as it has serious consequences on the rights of the petitioner and the continuation of criminal proceedings,” the Court observed in a detailed ruling.

Relying on the landmark judgments of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that not all non-final orders are interlocutory, and orders rejecting 156(3) applications fall within the category of “intermediate orders” that affect substantive rights of the complainant.

“Some orders may not be final orders and yet they may not be interlocutory orders. Such orders fall in the category of intermediate orders, against which revision is maintainable.” – Madhu Limaye principle endorsed [Para 18]

Complaint Disclosed Alleged Murder Conspiracy – High Court Criticises Magistrate For Denying Police Investigation

The facts, as narrated in the complaint, were grave and disturbing. The petitioner’s son, Himanshu Jha, had attended a marriage function at the residence of accused Rahul Singh Tomar and was supposed to return on 28 February 2020. On the intervening night of 27 February 2020, he was allegedly murdered under a pre-planned conspiracy by Rahul and others. The accused allegedly concocted a story that Himanshu was found in a park in suspicious circumstances. After hospitalisation and a prolonged struggle, Himanshu succumbed to his injuries.

The father moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, praying for direction to register an FIR and investigate the case properly. However, the Magistrate dismissed the application stating that the Court itself could inquire into the complaint, and thus police assistance was not needed.

Criticising this approach, the High Court observed:

“The trial court committed error because in the present case, police investigation and custodial interrogation is very much required... The accused persons have committed the murder of the son of the petitioner under a conspiracy and in a planned way. The accused persons also in connivance with the competent police authorities have tried to erase the important evidence...” [Para 7]

It added:

“Mens rea and intention can only be proved by the police investigation. Denying such investigation, when the complaint disclosed cognizable offence, was wholly unjustified.” [Para 7]

The Court also reaffirmed that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC when a cognizable offence is disclosed and that preliminary inquiry is not permissible in such cases.

Sessions Court Mechanically Dismissed Revision Without Applying Mind

The Court was particularly critical of the approach taken by the Sessions Court, which refused to consider whether the order of the Magistrate could be classified as an “intermediate order”. Instead, it dismissed the revision citing Section 397(2) CrPC, which bars revision against interlocutory orders.

“The Sessions Judge committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision as not maintainable, without examining whether the impugned order was an intermediate order,” the Court held, adding that such a narrow and mechanical interpretation defeats the very purpose of the revisional jurisdiction.

“Such an approach defeats the very purpose of revisional jurisdiction and results in miscarriage of justice, which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” [Para 22]

No Opinion on Merits – Case Remanded for Fresh Consideration

The High Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint and was only ruling on the procedural illegality committed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The order of the Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 was set aside and the criminal revision restored for fresh adjudication on its merits in accordance with law.

“The matter is remanded to the revisional court to decide the criminal revision afresh on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” [Para 23]

This ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reasserts the distinction between interlocutory and intermediate orders and affirms that refusal to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is not a mere procedural step, especially in serious offences like murder. It also serves as a strong reminder that courts must not allow technicalities to suppress substantive justice, particularly in matters involving alleged conspiracy, tampering of evidence, and custodial requirements for investigation.

By restoring the revision and remanding it for a fresh decision, the Court has ensured that the voice of the complainant is not silenced by procedural missteps and that access to justice remains meaningful, even in complex or delayed matters.

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025