Accused Has Valuable Right To Be Heard, Revision Petition Against Order Directing Registration Of FIR Maintainable:...

07 Aug 2025 --
0 Comments

🔍 Legal Issue Explained

Key Principle:

An accused or prospective accused has a valuable legal right to be heard before criminal proceedings such as registration of an FIR, or initiation of an investigation, especially when ordered by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Moreover, such orders are subject to revision under Section 397 CrPC.

📚 Relevant Legal Provisions

✅ Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s power to order investigation

Allows a Magistrate to direct police to register an FIR and investigate a non-cognizable offence if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.

✅ Section 397 CrPC – Revision

Empowers Sessions Court or High Court to call for and examine records of inferior courts to check the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order or proceeding.

🧾 Judicial View: Right of the Accused to Be Heard

Indian courts have gradually recognized that even at a pre-FIR stage, the accused (or the person against whom a complaint is made) has a right to be heard, especially if the complaint is vague, malicious, or filed with an ulterior motive.

⚖️ Important Case Laws

🏛️ Calcutta High Court – [Recent Ruling (2023)]

The Calcutta High Court held that:

“An accused has a valuable right to be heard even at the stage where a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of FIR.”

It further observed:

“Such orders are not administrative but judicial orders, and hence subject to revision under Section 397 CrPC.”

Impact: This ruling clarifies that if a Magistrate orders the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3), the person named in the complaint can challenge that order through a revision petition, asserting their right to be heard.

🏛️ Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287

Supreme Court held:

"Before directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3), the Magistrate must apply judicial mind."

Requirement of affidavit: The Court mandated that an affidavit must accompany the complaint to prevent abuse of process.

Relevance: Strengthens the argument that Section 156(3) orders are judicial, not administrative—hence, subject to challenge, including by revision.

🏛️ Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 4 SCC 432

Supreme Court observed:

“Even if the accused has no right to participate at the stage of investigation, they have a right to approach higher courts if the process is misused or initiated illegally.”

🏛️ Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 576

The Court ruled that:

"Where the accused is aggrieved by a Magistrate’s direction to police to investigate, they can challenge the same under revision or writ jurisdiction."

🧠 Legal Reasoning

Why is Revision Maintainable?

Order under Section 156(3) is Judicial:
Since the Magistrate has to apply judicial mind before passing such an order, it qualifies as a judicial order, hence revisable under Section 397 CrPC.

Accused's Right to Fairness:
If false or frivolous complaints are mechanically forwarded for FIR without hearing the affected party, it can result in abuse of criminal law. Therefore, the accused has a right to challenge such orders before higher courts.

Prevention of Misuse:
Recognizing this right helps filter malicious complaints at the initial stage itself.

📌 Practical Implications

Accused can file a revision petition before Sessions Court or High Court challenging the Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR.

Courts may set aside or modify such orders if:

There is non-application of mind.

The complaint is vague or frivolous.

The complaint is motivated or vindictive.

This helps protect individual liberty and prevents unnecessary harassment through criminal proceedings.

📋 Summary Table

Legal Provision / Concept	Explanation
Section 156(3) CrPC	Magistrate can direct police to register FIR and investigate
Section 397 CrPC	Allows revision of judicial orders like those under 156(3)
Right of Accused	Accused has a valuable right to be heard before such orders are passed
Key Case – Priyanka Srivastava	Affidavit required for 156(3); judicial application of mind needed
Calcutta HC Ruling	Recognized revision as maintainable and right of accused to be heard
Supreme Court Views	Repeatedly upheld the principle of procedural fairness

✅ Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court, supported by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, has rightly held that an accused has a valuable legal right to be heard, and a revision petition is maintainable against an order directing the registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. This judicial approach ensures accountability, protects personal liberty, and prevents abuse of criminal law.