While fully, firmly and finally upholding most decisively the legal rights of the accused to be heard which cannot be compromised, the Delhi High Court it must be noted has in a most progressive, pertinent, pragmatic and powerful judgment titled Ravinder Lal Airi vs S. Shalu Construction Pvt. Ltd And Ors. in W.P.(Crl) 209/2023, Crl.M.A. 1953/2023 that was pronounced finally on January 24, 2023 has minced just no words absolutely to observe clearly that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order.

It must be noted that the Court also very clearly held that the accused has a valuable right to be heard. The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. Of course, the Court observed most unequivocally that the person can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences.

The Bench further clearly stated that:
Therefore, an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) CrPC is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against the same would be maintainable as the accused has a valuable right to be heard. It deserves mentioning here that the Court made the key observations while dismissing a plea that was moved by Ravinder Lal Airi who was seeking to restore an order passed by ACMM court on January 1, 2020.

At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that:
This is a petition seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Court in Crl. Rev. 23/2020 and to restore the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned ACMM.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
In the present case, the learned ACMM vide order dated 06.01.2020 on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was pleased to disregard the action taken report (ATR) and direct registration of the FIR.

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 5 that:
The said order was challenged by the respondents herein in a revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge who firstly discussed the legal position and held that the revision petition is maintainable.

As we see, the Bench then while elaborating states succinctly in para 6 that, Secondly, the learned Sessions Court was of the view that once the action taken report opined that no cognizable offence is made out and the matter is civil in nature, for the learned ACMM to disagree with the opinion of the inquiry officer and order registration of FIR would require reasons.

To be sure, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 stating that:
The Sessions Court was of the view that the order of 06.01.2020 was devoid of reasons and hence the Sessions Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 06.01.2020 and remand the matter to ACMM to hear afresh and take a reasoned decision.

Needless to say, the Bench then specifies in para 8 that:
This order of the Sessions Court has been challenged by the petitioner.

Quite significantly, while citing the most relevant case law, the Bench then hastens to add in para 12 noting that:
The Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr. in W.P.(CRL) 1253/2016 on 10.01.2017 observed as under:

13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected.

In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, 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.

Most significantly, the Bench minces just no words to unquestionably hold in para 13 that:
I am of the view that the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of the accused person. He can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences. Therefore, an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against the same would be maintainable as the accused has a valuable right to be heard.

Most remarkably, the Bench while citing the most relevant case law observes in para 16 that:
In Harpal Singh Arora and Ors. vs. State and Anr. 2008 (103) DRJ 282 this Court formulated the relevant question which reads as under:

(b) Is a Magistrate, when approached thereafter by a complainant with a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC along with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC seeking a direction for investigation by the police, bound to deal with the said report before disposing of the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC and proceeding with the complaint under Section 200 CrPC?

16. Considering the fact that the learned MM called for the report of the CAW Cell, which is fairly detailed, the proper course of action before ordering an investigation under Section 156 (3) would have been to examine that report before deciding to issue a direction for investigation. When the police in the CAW Cell has come to conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, the Magistrate cannot brush aside that conclusion lightly. Although that the said conclusion of the CAW Cell is not binding on the Magistrate at that stage, since his order is a judicial one he must give reasons, however brief, why he is inclined to order investigation notwithstanding the said report. Question (b) is answered accordingly.

Be it noted, the Bench notes aptly in para 17 that:
In Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai 1998(1) Crimes 351, the Gujarat High Court took exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases u/s 156(3) of the Code and advised Magistrate not to pass orders mechanically. It was held:-

Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench opined in para 18 that:
I am of the view that the ATR has not been considered by the learned MM.

Most forthrightly, the Bench then mandates after analyzing everything in para 19 that:
The MM directed that in these facts and circumstances this Court deems it appropriate to order registration of FIR… This order is not showing application of mind as to why and how the ATR has been considered and the reasons as to why the learned MM has not agreed with the opinion expressed by the IO that no cognizable offence has been made out. This aspect has been correctly analysed by the learned Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 20 that:
In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

All in all, we thus see quite ostensibly that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear that the accused has valuable right to be heard as stated herein aforesaid! There can be just no gainsaying that the Court also made it crystal clear reiterating unequivocally that the revision petition against order directing registration of FIR is maintainable. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh