PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

(2.) The above argument has been rebutted by learned AGA mainly on the ground that no revision lies against the impugned order and the revisionist has no locus-standi to move the present revision. It has also been argued that the memo of revision does not reveal as to whether FIR has already been registered in compliance of the order at the police station or not.

(3.) Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this revision is not maintainable because if the FIR has not been registered so far in compliance of the impugned order at the police station, the revisionist/ petitioners are not accused in any criminal case and they have no locus-standi to challenge it at the most they can be termed merely a prospective accused. On the other hand, if the FIR has already been registered, remedy lies else where and in that case FIR can be challenged only before the Division Bench in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P. and others,1989 ACC 181.