[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1635
1 MCRC-43221-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43221 of 2024
SANDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Himanshu Chaturvedi - Advocate for the respondent [R-3].
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the order
dated 26.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in
Criminal Revision No.317/2024, whereby the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior directing the Station House Officer of
Police Station Maharajpura to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to
submit a final report after investigation was affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revisional Court has
gravely erred in holding that an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is
interlocutory in nature and revision against such order is barred. It is argued that
such an order substantially affects the valuable rights of the proposed accused and,
therefore, cannot be treated as interlocutory. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1635
2 MCRC-43221-2024
o f Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC
551; Amarnath v. State of Haryana, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137.
Conversely, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 have supported the order of the Revisional Court and relied on
Nayan v. Vethinathan, 1975 CRLJ 994; Father Thomas v. State, 2011 CRLJ 2278
(Allahabad Full Bench).
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) has held that the expression "interlocutory order" in Section
397(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be given the narrowest interpretation. Any order which
substantially affects the rights of the parties or decides important issues cannot be
treated as interlocutory. Likewise, in the matter of Amarnath v. State of
Haryana (supra), it was observed that orders which decide "matters of moment" or
affect the vital rights of the accused fall outside the ambit of interlocutory orders.
The direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. undoubtedly
sets the criminal law in motion against the proposed accused. It may lead to
coercive steps including arrest, which have serious civil consequences. Such an
order, therefore, cannot be relegated to the category of a mere interlocutory order.
[See also: Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P (supra), where the Apex Court
emphasized the judicial nature of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.].
Distinction of the judgments relied on by the Revisional Court. ( i ) Nayan
v. Vethinathan, 1975 CRLJ 994 - This decision was rendered prior to the
authoritative pronouncements in Madhu Limaye (supra) and Amarnath (supra)
and the law as clarified by the Apex Court subsequently establishes that orders
substantially affecting rights are not interlocutory.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1635
3 MCRC-43221-2024
(ii) Father Thomas v. State, 2011 CRLJ 2278 (Allahabad Full Bench). The
Full Bench proceeded on the assumption that an order under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. is administrative in nature and it did not consider the binding ratio
of Madhu Limaye (supra) and Amarnath (supra) , which categorically held that
initiation of investigation directly affects the rights of the accused and cannot be
treated as interlocutory.
Accordingly, the reliance placed by the Revisional Court on the aforesaid
decisions is misplaced.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable.
Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order
dated 26.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.)
in Criminal Revision No.317/2024 is hereby quashed. The Revisional Court is
directed to decide the revision petition on its own merits, in accordance with law,
expeditiously.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
