Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26685 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 500 of 2025 Revisionist :- Indra Kumar Awasthi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present revision filed U/S 397/401 of Cr.P.C. now U/S 438/442 of BNSS Act, 2023, the revisionists have challenged the judgment dated 27.02.2025passed by Court of First Additional sessions Judge, Bahraich in Session Trial No. 93/2014 (State Vs. Sahajram Shukla & Another) relating to Case Crime no. 323/2013, U/S 304, 504, 506 of I.P.C. wherein the trial court has directed the police to lodge a first information report agains the revisionists. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionists that with regard to an incident occurring on 05.06.2013 a first information report was lodged by Smt. Prabhawati W/o Late Ramkishun Mishra stating that on the said date she was going along with her husband to purchase household goods when at 05.00 p.m. near the field of Sahajram accused persons were lying in wait for them and they started physically assaulting both the persons and abusing them. 5. In the said incident, the husband of the complainant received serious injuries, due to which both his legs were broken and when she made a hue and cry, some of villagers came thereafter accused persons ran away threatening the husband and wife. The said first information report was lodged on the next date i.e. 05.06.2013, while the husband of the information, namely, Ramkishun Mishra died due to injuries in the early hours of 06.06.2013. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused and by means of impugned order they have been acquitted of all the charges. 6. During trial, the complainant has also died and the revisionists claiming themselves relatives of the complainant have subsequently prosecuted the said case before the trial court. They have also filed a criminal appeal U/s 372 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order of acquittal being Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2025 which is pending consideration before this Court. 7. The grievance of the revisionists is with regard to the order passed in the said judgment, directing the police to register a first information report against the revisionists which have been stated in paragraph No. 40 of the impugned judgment. 8. After due perusal of the facts and arguments presented, this court is of the considered view that the order passed under section 156(3) by the Magistrate is an interlocutory order. It has been settled law that no revision is maintainable against any Interlocutory order and, therefore, this revision does not have any standing before this court. 9. The above-mentioned point of law has been, time and again, discussed in multiple cases including a full bench judgment of this court in the case of Father Thomas v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 All LJ 217 : "45. The power conferred under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is of the same nature as the power under section 156(1), which is the power conferred on a police officer in-charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable case to investigate a case, without orders of the Magistrate, which the Magistrate of the local area would have power to inquire into or try. The police officer records an FIR in accordance with the procedure mentioned in section 154(1) of the Code. In the event of the failure of the police officer to record the information, the aggrieved informant has been given a right to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3) for a direction for investigation. Such powers may also be exercised by any officer superior in rank to an officer in-charge of a police station in view of S. 36 of the Code. The powers of a Magistrate for giving directions under section 156(3) is thus allied to the powers of police officers under sections 154(1), 154(3) and 36 of the Code. It would thus be highly illogical to suggest that the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in a criminal revision or other judicial proceedings with the decision of the police officer in-charge of the police station to lodge an FIR under section 154(1) of the Code or by a superior officer under section 154(3), or the actual investigation conducted by the police under the aforesaid provisions, but the initial order of the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. peremptorily reminding the police to perform its duty and investigate a cognizable offence could be subject to challenge in a criminal revision or other judicial proceeding. 46. We thus see that the orders for investigation are only an ancillary step in aid of the investigation or trial, and are clearly interlocutory in nature, similar to orders granting bail, or calling for records, or issuing search warrants, or summoning witnesses and other like matters which infringe no valuable rights of the prospective accused, and are not amenable to challenge in a criminal revision, in view of the bar contained in section 397(2) of the Code. 48. As the direction for investigation passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) is purely interlocutory in nature, and involves no substantial rights of the parties, we are of the view that the bar under section 397(2) Cr. P.C. to the entertainment of a criminal revision can also not be circumvented by moving an application under section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed in State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641 in paragraph 29: "29……… This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment."" 10.Accordingly order passed U/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and therefore not amenable under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter, accordingly present appeal stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench