JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA as well as learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The revisionist is aggrieved by an order dated 25.9.06 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2006 Rajeev Mohan Sharma and Ors. v. Rakesh Mohan Sharma by which the lower revisional court has set aside the order of registration of FIR passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Misc. Application No. 326 of 2006 filed by the present revisionist vide its order dated 2.6.06.
3. The contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the revision at the behest of the respondents was not maintainable at all as order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and that the said order was administrative in nature. Learned Counsel further contended that the accused has got no right to be heard before they are summoned by the trial court. Learned Counsel further contended that without jurisdiction, the revision filed by the respondents was entertained by the Sessions Judge Ghaziabad and hence the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ghaziabad allowing the said revision is an order having no sanctity in the eyes of law and, therefore, should be set aside.
4. The matter which is canvased in this revision is no longer res-integra as the Apex Court on many a occasions has laid down the law that the accused does not have any right to interfere in the registration of an FIR or investigation of the same. The Apex Court in the case of Amarnath v. State of Haryana 1977 SCC (Criminal) 585 has held that the accused has got no right to be heard before he is summoned and no proceeding in his respect takes place before that stage. The Apex Court has further held in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Jaipur v. State of Rajsthan that the power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. clearly refers to the investigation which is carried out under Section 156(1).
5. In view the law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and, therefore, the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad was powerless to entertain the revision filed at the instance of the proposed accused. The said revision was barred by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ghaziabad could not have allowed the same.
6. In view of what I have stated above, the impugned order dated 25.9.06 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ghaziabad is hereby set aside and the order dated 2.6.06 passed by A.C.J.M. Ist, Ghaziabad is hereby restored. In this revision I have not issued notices to the respondent proposed accused as in my view he has got no right to be heard at pre FIR registration stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The culprit named in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has got no right to say that FIR against him should not be directed to be registered. He is the person against whom commission of cognizable offence is alleged and hence he has no right to object the order for registration of FIR.
7. This revision is allowed at the admission stage itself.