Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC

"Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Is Interlocutory, Not Open to Revision by Proposed Accused", In a decisive reiteration of settled law, the Allahabad High Court on December 9, 2025, dismissed a criminal revision filed by proposed accused persons seeking to challenge a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Justice Chawan Prakash, while ruling in Nahni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, held that no revision lies against an order directing registration of an FIR when neither cognizance has been taken nor process issued against the revisionists.

Referring to the binding Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is an interlocutory order and hence barred from challenge under Section 397(2) CrPC by a person named in the complaint but not yet an accused before the court.

FIR Direction Challenged by Proposed Accused

The controversy arose when the revisionists—six persons named in an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC by complainant Manju—sought to challenge the Magistrate's order dated 30.10.2023, passed in Case No. 416/12 of 2023. The order directed the local police at Hathras to register an FIR and investigate the allegations raised in the complaint.

Aggrieved by the direction, the proposed accused filed Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023, contending that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to them.

However, the High Court firmly held that such a revision was not maintainable in law, as the order in question was purely administrative in nature and did not amount to a judicial determination affecting the legal rights of the proposed accused.

Can Proposed Accused Maintain a Criminal Revision Against FIR Registration Order Under Section 156(3)?

The primary issue before the Court was whether a person named in a complaint but against whom no cognizance has yet been taken can file a revision petition against a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration and investigation of an FIR.

The Court held that such a person is not entitled to challenge the order at the pre-cognizance stage. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court relied extensively on the Full Bench judgment in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. (Criminal Revision No. 1640 of 2001, decided on 22.12.2010), which authoritatively answered this question.

 “Not Maintainable Under Section 397 CrPC”

Justice Chawan Prakash, noting the absence of the revisionists or their counsel during the hearing, recorded the submissions of the Government Advocate and proceeded to evaluate the maintainability of the revision in law.

The Court observed:

“The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.”

Further clarifying the nature of such orders, the Court quoted the Full Bench in Father Thomas:

“An order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing a police officer to investigate a cognizable case is an interlocutory order and the remedy of revision against such order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.”

In dismissing the revision, the Court also disapproved of the contrary view taken in Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P., (2000) 41 ACC 435, which had held that such orders were revisable and not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court categorically stated that the Full Bench in Father Thomas had overruled that view, stating:

“The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is amenable to revision and not to writ, is not correct.”

Magistrate’s FIR Direction Is Not Revisable at Instance of Named Persons

Reinforcing the settled position of law, the High Court concluded that proposed accused cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction to challenge a pre-cognizance investigative direction under Section 156(3) CrPC, as such an order is merely interlocutory and does not affect the legal rights of the person named in the complaint.

“Since no criminal revision lies against an order passed by the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an FIR, the present revision, filed by the proposed accused/revisionists, is not maintainable.”

The revision was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2025