Vinod Kumar Vs. State of HP and another Cr.MP No. 359 of 2025 in Cr. Rev. No. 359 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.1.2026 23.2.2026 Present: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the non-applicants/respondents. Cr.MP No. 5655 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for taking subsequent events on record and issued an appropriate direction. It has been asserted that the learned Trial Court has passed an order in an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the non-applicant No.2 to register the FIR and investigate the matter. This order was received by the non-applicant No.2 on 18.3.2024, but he did not comply with it till 26.3.2024. The applicant filed an application on 27.3.2024 for initiating contempt proceedings. The learned Trial Court failed to initiate a preliminary inquiry within statutory time. The learned Revisional Court set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 23.4.2025. The applicant has filed the instant revision against the order of the Revisional Court, which is pending before this Court. Learned Trial Court passed an order on 6.9.2025 and disposed of the application for contempt, holding that it had become infructuous after the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. The order caused a serious prejudice to the applicant. The learned Trial Court continued with the contempt proceedings after the expiry of the limitation. Therefore, it was prayed that the order passed by the learned Trial Court be taken on record and appropriate directions be issued to the learned Trial Court. 2. Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the subsequent events are connected to the application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The main revision has also been filed in the proceedings under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is necessary to bring the subsequent events on record to effectively adjudicate the dispute pending between the parties. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the subsequent events be taken on record. 3. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, opposed the application and submitted that the subsequent events are not related to the dispute pending before the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. In the present case, the main revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Revisional Court setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The matter was admitted on the legal issue whether an order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate amounts to an interlocutory order or a final order, which is a pure question of law. The subsequent events sought to be brought on record will have no bearing whatsoever in determining this question. Further, the subsequent events sought to be placed on record have arisen out of the independent proceedings filed under the Contempt of Courts Act and are not directly connected to the application filed under Section 156(3) of CrPC. If the applicant feels aggrieved by any order passed in the contempt proceedings, his remedy lies elsewhere and not in a petition challenging the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. Therefore, the subsequent events cannot be brought on record on this consideration as well. 6. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. 7. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. Cr. Revision No. 359 of 2025 List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd February, 2026 (Chander)