The order made under Section 156(3) of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) serves as an intimation to the police, directing them to exercise their plenary power of investigation under Section 156(1). Although an order passed under Section 156(3) occurs at the cognizance stage and is a judicial order, it remains administrative in nature.

At this stage, any order issued by the Magistrate does not adversely affect the rights of any person. If a prospective accused wishes to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3), they cannot do so by preferring a revision. It is not typically open for the accused to claim, before the revisional court or the High Court, that allegations related to a cognizable offense should not be investigated.

A petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to challenge the order under Section 156(3) is not maintainable. The reason is that if a cognizable offense is disclosed in an application filed by the aggrieved person, that application must be investigated to bring the culprits to book. Rejecting such an application would not serve the ends of justice; rather, it would be a travesty of justice.

Furthermore, revision at the instance of the proposed accused against the order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, which directs the police to investigate the case after lodging the FIR, is not legally tenable. The order under Section 156(3) is an interlocutory order, and according to Section 397(2) of the CrPC, revision against such an order is not maintainable.

Essentially, the order under Section 156(3) empowers the Magistrate to issue a direction to the police to exercise their plenary power of investigation, similar to the power conferred on the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Code. The purpose is to prevent arbitrary exercise of power by the police echelons and ensure adherence to the law.

Also Read:

• Practical Aspect Of Section 156(3) Of Criminal Procedure Code