Is revision petition maintainable against the order of M.M. in application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C
A person can initiate a case against the responsible authorities under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. if the FIR is not registered or the inquiry is not done properly.
The first information report submitted by a victim of a crime is known as the FIR. He or she goes to the police station with the hopes of receiving justice from the authorities. But what if the official in charge of your FIR refuses to register it? What way will you take?
The answer to these questions is Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., under this section, after reviewing the entire case, the magistrate issued an order to the police officers to investigate the case, which they cannot deny.
The magistrate can keep an eye on the entire investigation to see if it is being conducted properly. In the cases of Union of India v. Paras Laminates and Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Company, it is stated that while the section may not explain in detail the actual power of the magistrate, it should be understood that the magistrate has the authority to resolve the matter quickly and efficiently by either ordering the FIR to be registered or investigating the matter by police officer or himself.
Now the question is whether the revision petition is maintainable against the order of the metropolitan magistrate in application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C or not?
The Allahabad High Court bench in the matter of Father Thomas v. the State of U.P. said that the revision petition can only be filed before the cognizance or issue of process against him. It is said that a revision petition against an order mandating the registration of a criminal complaint under Section 156 (3) is not maintainable.
However, in the case of Nishu Wadhwa against Siddharth Wadhwa, the Delhi High Court ruled that it was a revisable order. As a result, we may conclude that it is mostly determined by the case's overall condition, which can be evaluated after a thorough examination of the case.
Although the revisional power is extremely misused, people often filled the cases u/s 156 (3) only to harass the other party.
To prevent this abuse, the court has directed that an affidavit be appended to the application u/s 156. (3).