KAILASH DATTATRAYA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Submissions of learned counsel for the Applicants were heard on the earlier date. We have also heard learned APP. The challenge in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') is to the first information report ('FIR') registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai. The quashing of the FIR is sought by the Applicants. When the application was called out for admission, we pointed out to the learned advocate for the Applicants that a remedy under the Code is available to the Applicants in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 AllMR(Cri) 985. The Division Bench of this Court by the said decision held that an order made by learned Magistrate under sub-Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code is not an interlocutory order, but it is a final order on an application/complaint under sub-Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code. The Division Bench held that a remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Code is available against the said order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Applicants urged that the remedy under Section 397 of the Code is not at all an efficacious remedy inasmuch as the Revisional Court or the Sessions Court has no power to quash the FIR. He submitted that the law is well settled. As a consequence of an order being made under sub Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code, the officer in-charge of concerned Police Station is under an obligation to register FIR in accordance with sub Section 1 of Section 154 of the Code. His submission is that as the Revisional Court cannot quash FIR, even assuming that a remedy is available under Section 397 of the Code to challenge an order under sub Section 3 of Section 156, the said remedy cannot be an efficacious remedy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicants also submitted that the view that an order allowing/granting application/complaint under sub Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code is not an interlocutory order, may also need reconsideration inasmuch as by passing the said order, cognizance is not taken of the offence by the Criminal Court.