RAM DHANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has been taken up in the revised list. None is present for the revisionist.

(2.) HEARD arguments of Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

(3.) AT the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA that revision against the impugned order is not legally maintainable as the prospective accused has no right to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing investigation after restoration of the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is that on the FIR being lodged in pursuance of the impugned order, the accused persons could seek remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the FIR and they have no right to challenge the impugned order either in Revision or in the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.