(1.) Heard learned counsel for appellant, S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
(2.) Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the order dtd. 27/1/2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C./J.M. Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 3033 of 2022 is erroneous and beyond jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. The application moved under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant with ulterior motive. The dispute relates to the landed property and the order passed by the learned Magistrate for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter is against the principles of law.
(3.) In support of his submission learned A.G.A. has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. WIN Chaddha reported in 1993 SCC (Criminal) 1171 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a proposed accused in an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has got no right to be heard either on the application before the Magistrate or in revision before the revisional court. Hon'ble Apex Court has also affirmed the judgment of this Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (72) ACC 564 (Allahabad) (Full Bench) wherein this Court has held that an accused does not have any right to be heard before he is summoned by the Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has got no right to raise any objection till the stage of summoning and resultantly he cannot be conferred with a right to challenge the order passed against him under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. prior to his summoning. If the Magistrate has allowed an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register FIR and investigate, revision against such order is not maintainable under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C.