news details |
|
|
| Court dismisses criminal revision against FIR registration order | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 16: The Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has held that an order passed by a Magistrate directing registration of an FIR and consequent investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged through criminal revision in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
First Additional Sessions Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh made these observations while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Bodh Raj Sharma and five others challenging an order dated December 15, 2025, passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax), Jammu.
The controversy arose from an application filed by Ram Saroop under Section 175(3) of the BNSS seeking registration of an FIR against Bodh Raj Sharma and others for alleged offences including theft, housebreaking by night and mischief causing damage to property.
Acting upon the application, the Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, had directed the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kanachak, to investigate the matter in accordance with law.
Aggrieved by the Magistrate's order, Bodh Raj Sharma, Satish Sharma, Sunil Sharma, Suresh Sharma, Kamla Devi and Roopali Sharma approached the Sessions Court, seeking its setting aside on the grounds that it was illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law.
Advocate Jagmohan Singh appeared for the revision petitioners, while Advocate Vishal Sharma represented respondent Ram Saroop.
Opposing the revision petition, counsel for the respondent submitted that an order directing registration of an FIR and consequent investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS was interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to criminal revision because of the express statutory prohibition under Section 438(2).
After hearing counsel for both parties and examining the relevant record, the Court observed that the legal position regarding the maintainability of criminal revision against an order directing police investigation was no longer res integra.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Satpal Sharma versus Pawan Singh Rathore, former Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, wherein it was held that orders directing investigation are merely ancillary steps in aid of investigation and are interlocutory in nature.
Referring to the High Court's ruling, the Sessions Court observed that such orders do not infringe upon the valuable rights of prospective accused persons and, therefore, are not amenable to challenge through criminal revision.
The Court noted that Section 175(3) of the BNSS corresponds to the erstwhile Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), under which Magistrates were empowered to direct police investigation.
Applying the settled legal principles, the Court held that the impugned order directing investigation was interlocutory in character and consequently attracted the statutory bar against criminal revision under Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
The Court observed that the statutory restriction on entertaining revisions against interlocutory orders rendered the present petition legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal revision petition as not maintainable without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the underlying dispute between the parties. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
