India: 156(3), CrPc: Interlocutory Or Not? Treading A Paradoxical Course

Last Updated: 23 November 2018
Article by Wasim Beg and Karan Dev Chopra

The term "interlocutory order" is a term that has no lack of well-known legal significance and appears to present no complex difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. The Webster's New World Dictionary defines "interlocutory" as an order other than final decision. The prima facie simplicity however, has led to severe complexities in the interpretation of the same so far as an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is concerned. The Apex Court as far back as in 1977 in its ruling in Amarnath v. State of Haryana observed that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code had been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denoted orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. It went on to say that an order which substantially affects the right of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to a Superior Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code, per contra, orders which are matters of the moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of a Superior Court.

The issue whether an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code would be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction has met with a myriad of responses from High Courts across the country. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court,when seized of the said issue in the decision reported as 2011 (2) ALJ 217 :Father Thomas v. State of U.P. had said that a prospective accused had no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by filing a revision petition before cognizance or issuance of process against him. The Allahabad High Court decided that a revision petition against such an order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was not maintainable. The Full bench noted that the accused had a right to raise his defence only during the course of trial and even on filing of complaint, when the Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance, the prospective accused cannot intervene or raise his defence unless summons are issued. Thus, a direction to register an FIR, in the view of the Allahabad High Court was not inherently revisable, being interlocutory in nature.

Only three years later, a Full Bench of the same High Court was embraced with the similar issue, only with different undertones, the issue before the High Court now, in Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P was whether an order rejecting the prayer of the complainant or the informant to register an FIR, would be amenable to a revision. The Full Bench, while distinguishing the Full Bench in Father Thomas went on to hold that an order of the Magistrate rejecting an Application under Section 156(3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the Police and for investigation is not an Interlocutory Order and is therefore amenable to the remedy of a Criminal Revision under Section 397. The conundrum thus, continued.

The issue was far from finding any solace, A year later a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in its decision in Avinash v. State of Maharashtra, opted to take a different stance thereby holding that the order passed directing police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the Code is not an interlocutory order, but in the nature of a final order terminating the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code which would therefore be revisable. The Bombay High Court's decision finds its genesis in the reasoning that once the Magistrate passes an order under 156(3), nothing further is required to be done by the Magistrate, thus attaching a finality to the order. This decision of the Bombay High Court thus paved way for a revision to be preferred in both scenarios regardless whether the application under 156(3) of the Code was dismissed or allowed, thus, in a way, making the accused within Maharashtra better placed than an accused in Uttar Pradesh.

The same year as the Bombay High Court's ruling in Avinash v. State of Maharashtra, a Single Judge of the Chattisgarh High Court in Amarnath Agarwal v. Jai Singh Agarwal had  the occasion to hold that an order passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code does envisage any findings against the accused nor does it include any sentence passed against the accused, thereby making it an interlocutory order in the flesh and hence alien to the remedy of a criminal revision. The Chattisgarh High Court was of the view that if a revision against such an order would lie, then the Sessions Court would in a way be clothed with the powers akin to that available to High Courts under Section 482 of the Code.

What comes to light from the above is that one High Court's Full bench decision goes on to say that a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code to register an FIR is not revisable whilst another Full Bench of the same High Court has held that a direction rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of the Code to register an FIR is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision. Another High Court does not accord the benefit of a revision to any direction under Section 156(3) of the Code and then another High Court extends the benefit to all orders passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. Thus the "simplicity" hastily unfolds into a twilight of complexity and this ambiguity seeks to displace the maxim "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium", the dichotomy doesn't conclude there, the Delhi High Court has dealt with the present issue at length in its ruling in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6444 holding that an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable. The Delhi High Court relied upon its own judgment in Gabrani Infrastructure wherein the High Court had ruled that once directions for registration of FIR are given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate becomes functus-officio and has no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation.

The position as explained has led to a fog of confusion with regard to the maintainability of a revision petition qua orders passed in a 156(3) application, a seminal issue that hasn't yet witnessed the corridors of our Top Court. A corollary that arises from the above debate is of equal significance when tested on the anvil of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, the golden principle of natural justice that echoed throughout the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi. Going forward, if the final position of law is accepted to be that of what Bombay and Delhi have ruled, thus according an accused, the right to prefer a revision petition against an order under 156(3) that directs the registration of an FIR against him. The anomaly that the Code prescribes is indeed a curious one, it is trite law that a prospective accused has no right of audience before a Magistrate in proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code, thereby no opportunity is given to the prospective accused to defend his case and convince the Court that an FIR ought not be registered against him. Assuming that a Court passes an order rejecting the prayer for registration of an FIR against a prospective accused, and the complainant, as is his right, prefers a criminal revision that would seek registration of an FIR. The same prospective accused is now bestowed with a statutory right to be heard before the Revisional Court on the strength of section 401(2) of the Code which mandates that no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard, thus leading to a paradoxical situation. The order that could be passed by the Superior Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction while allowing such a revision would be inter alia, to direct the registration of an FIR against the accused, but in this case the accused had a right to present his defence before the Court and whereas if the Court of the Magistrate had allowed the application under 156(3), the same order directing he registration of an FIR against the accused would have been passed, an order, prejudicial to the accused in equal measure, but only this time, without extending any opportunity to the accused to be heard and make arguments in his defence.

The cloud of haze is only thickened, as firstly, there is a patent lack of clarity when it comes to determining the "interlocutory" nature of an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. The diverse stands of the Nation's High Courts continue to cast a deep shadow of doubt as to whether a criminal revision will be maintainable or not, and at whose behest in an order emanating from a proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code. Secondly, a paradoxical question remains unanswered as how and why an accused, who is armed with no right to be heard before a Magistrate in an original 156(3) proceeding is armed with the a right of audience before the Revisional Court in a criminal revision arising from the very same proceeding. Courts have attributed such a right on the reasoning of natural justice, besides being a statutory entitlement and have also recognised this right as emanation of the much venerated constitutional rights to fair procedure, fair treatment and objective decision making. As much as such an attribution of this kind stands test on the anvil of logical reasoning and constitutional safeguards, it does make one wonder as to why the same rights lose colour where an original proceeding under 156(3) is concerned, any prejudice that may be caused to an accused or a prospective accused at the stage of a revision before a Revisional Court, which clothes him with the right to be heard and defend his case, could be caused in equal measure before the Court of the Magistrate. The plot thickens when one considers the situation that the Revisional Court could pass the identical order in a criminal revision, directing registration of an FIR against the accused which the Court of the Magistrate also could have passed, only this time, after hearing the same accused who was turned away unheard by the Magistrate.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions