In a ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards in criminal law, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed against a magistrate's order directing police to register and investigate an FIR. The order, passed by Justice Chawan Prakash on December 9, 2025 in Nahni & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another, rests on the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. (2010), holding that a magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is interlocutory and not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom no cognizance has been taken.
The Case. The matter arose from an application filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Hathras seeking registration of an FIR against six persons under Section 156(3) CrPC. On October 30, 2023, the ACJM allowed the application and directed police to register an FIR. The proposed accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 397 CrPC challenging this direction.
The State's Objection. The Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, relying on the Father Thomas Full Bench, which had answered three questions: no revision lies at the instance of a proposed accused at this stage; such an order is interlocutory and revision is barred under Section 397(2) CrPC; and an earlier conflicting view (Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P., 2000) permitting revision was incorrect.
Court's Reasoning. Justice Prakash applied the Full Bench ruling directly, noting the revisionists were merely “proposed accused” against whom neither cognizance had been taken nor process issued — only a direction to investigate had been passed. The court held that allowing revisions at this stage would frustrate the investigative process, encourage dilatory tactics, and clog higher courts with premature challenges, defeating the legislative purpose of Section 156(3) as a check on police inaction.
Broader Implications. The judgment clarifies that accused persons must await completion of investigation or filing of a chargesheet before challenging proceedings, with remedies like quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC remaining available only at later stages. It reaffirms the binding nature of Full Bench precedent, resolving earlier confusion from conflicting division bench rulings, while protecting complainants' ability to seek FIR registration without facing immediate adversarial challenges from influential accused.