Accused Has Valuable Right To Be Heard, Revision Petition Against Order Directing Registration Of FIR Maintainable: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order. The accused has a valuable right to be heard, said the court.Justice Jasmeet Singh said the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. The person can be summoned for investigation,...
The Delhi High Court has observed that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order. The accused has a valuable right to be heard, said the court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. The person can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences, the court observed.
“Therefore, an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against the same would be maintainable as the accused has a valuable right to be heard,” Justice Singh said.
The court made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by Ravinder Lal Airi seeking to restore an order passed by ACMM court on January 1, 2020 directing registration of FIR on his application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Airi challenged an order passed by the Sessions Court which held that the revision petition against ACMM order was maintainable and remanded the matter back to ACMM court to hear it afresh and take a reasoned decision.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the order directing registration of FIR is an interlocutory order.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Parmar Rameshchandra Ganpatray & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. wherein it was held that an order of the Magistrate rejecting an application for registration of a case is not an "interlocutory order" and such an order is amenable to the remedy of criminal revision.
The counsel also relied on the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Ors. wherein it was observed that the direction for investigation passed by the Magistrate is purely interlocutory in nature and the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC to entertain a criminal revision cannot be circumvented.
Disagreeing with the two judgments, Justice Singh referred to a ruling of a co-ordinate bench in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr. which held that an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable.
The court said the ATR was not considered by the ACMM. The order passed by the magistrate does not reflect "application of mind as to why and how the ATR has been considered and the reasons as to why the learned MM has not agreed with the opinion expressed by the IO that no cognizable offence has been made out."
“This aspect has been correctly analysed by the learned Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed,” the court said.
Advocate Dhruv Dwivedi appeared for the petitioner. ASC Rahul Tyagi represented State.
Title: RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97