On a quiet afternoon in Court No. 92, the Allahabad High Court once again drew a clear line on when accused persons can approach higher courts. Justice Chawan Prakash, hearing a criminal revision arising from Hathras, made it plain that an order directing the police to register an FIR is not something proposed accused can challenge at this stage. The revision was dismissed outright, with the court leaning firmly on settled Full Bench law.
Background
The case stemmed from a private complaint filed by one Manju before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Hathras. Invoking Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, she sought a direction to the police to register an FIR against Nahni and five others.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Upholds Pension Rights of Retired KVS Teachers, Rejects Sangathan’s
The magistrate, after considering the request, allowed the application and ordered the police to register the case and investigate. That order, dated October 30, 2023, triggered the present criminal revision. The proposed accused approached the High Court, arguing that the magistrate’s direction itself was flawed and deserved to be set aside.
When the matter was taken up, no one appeared for the revisionists. The State, however, was represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), who raised a preliminary objection on maintainability.
Court’s Observations
The court did not spend much time circling the issue. Justice Chawan Prakash noted that the question raised was no longer res integra. The AGA relied on the Full Bench judgment in Father Thomas vs State of U.P., which had conclusively settled the legal position.
Read also:-Supreme Court Quashes Rape Conviction After Marriage, Uses Article 142 to End Long Criminal
Referring to that ruling, the bench observed that an order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, which merely directs the police to register an FIR and investigate, is an “interlocutory order.” In simpler terms, it is a temporary procedural step, not a final decision on guilt or innocence.
“The Full Bench has clearly held that such an order is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued,” the judge noted, adding that the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC squarely applies.
The court also recalled that the Full Bench had rejected the earlier view that allowed revisions against such orders, clarifying that accused persons cannot stall investigations at the very threshold by filing revision petitions.
Read also:-Supreme Court Shields Actor Shreyas Talpade From Arrest in Multi-State Chit Fund FIRs, Allows
Decision
Applying the settled law to the facts before it, the High Court held that no criminal revision lies against an order of a magistrate directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. Since the challenge itself was not maintainable, the court declined to go into the merits of the allegations.
Accordingly, the criminal revision filed by Nahni and the other proposed accused was dismissed, clearing the way for the police investigation to proceed as directed by the magistrate.
Case Title: Nahni and 5 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023
Case Type: Criminal Revision
Decision Date: 9 December 2025