Allahabad High Court: Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Orders Under Section 156(3) CrPC
Court Declares Magistrate’s FIR Directions Are Interlocutory, Not Open to Revision
Ruling Reinforces Limits on Accused Challenging Pre-Investigation Orders
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: January 02, 2026:
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by proposed accused persons against a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The ruling, delivered by Justice Chawan Prakash in Nahni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, clarifies that orders directing registration of an FIR and investigation are interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged through revision petitions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Alone Can Suspend Sentences in Heinous Crimes, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court
This decision strengthens the principle that criminal proceedings must not be stalled at the preliminary stage and that accused persons cannot interfere before cognizance is taken or process is issued.
Background of the Case
- The case arose from a complaint filed by Manju against Nahni and five others.
- The Magistrate, exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, directed the police to register an FIR and investigate.
- The proposed accused challenged this order through a criminal revision petition before the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no revision lies against such interlocutory orders.
What Section 156(3) CrPC Means
Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to order police to register an FIR and investigate if a complaint discloses a cognizable offence.
- Purpose: Ensures access to justice when police fail to act on complaints.
- Nature of Order: Considered interlocutory, as it does not decide guilt or innocence but merely initiates investigation.
- Implication: Accused cannot challenge such orders until cognizance is taken or summons are issued.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chawan Prakash emphasized:
- Interlocutory Nature: Orders under Section 156(3) are preliminary and do not affect substantive rights.
- No Revision Maintainable: Criminal revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC cannot be entertained against interlocutory orders.
- Binding Precedent: The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of U.P., which held that proposed accused cannot challenge FIR directions.
Why This Ruling Matters
- Prevents Abuse of Process: Stops accused from delaying investigations by filing revision petitions.
- Strengthens Victim Rights: Ensures complainants can seek FIR registration without obstruction.
- Clarifies Legal Position: Reinforces settled law that interlocutory orders are beyond revision jurisdiction.
Broader Legal Context
- Supreme Court Precedent: The apex court has consistently held that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged through revision.
- High Court Consistency: Multiple High Courts, including Allahabad, have reiterated this principle to prevent misuse of legal remedies.
- Impact on Criminal Justice: Ensures smoother investigation and trial processes by limiting premature challenges.
Comparative Perspective
Globally, similar principles exist:
- UK & US: Preliminary orders initiating investigation are rarely open to challenge by accused.
- India: The ruling aligns with international norms, emphasizing that accused rights arise at later stages, not at FIR registration.
Challenges and Criticism
- Accused Concerns: Some argue that denying revision limits protection against frivolous complaints.
- Balance of Rights: Courts must ensure that while victims’ rights are protected, accused are not harassed through baseless FIRs.
- Safeguards: Accused can still challenge proceedings after cognizance or during trial.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Nahni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. is a landmark clarification of criminal procedure. By holding that proposed accused cannot challenge Magistrate’s FIR directions under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Court has reinforced the principle of double protection for victims and smooth functioning of investigations.
This judgment ensures that criminal justice remains accessible to complainants while safeguarding accused rights at appropriate stages, striking a balance between fairness and efficiency.
Keywords (SEO + ChatGPT Optimization)
- Allahabad High Court Section 156(3) CrPC ruling
- Criminal revision petition not maintainable
- Proposed accused cannot challenge FIR order
- Interlocutory order under CrPC explained
- Father Thomas case precedent Allahabad HC
- FIR registration Magistrate powers India
- Nahni v State of U.P. Allahabad High Court
- Criminal law interlocutory orders India
- Accused rights in FIR registration cases
- Allahabad HC criminal revision dismissal