16. cr appln 3441-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3441 OF 2010 Mahesh Vishandas Chandwani .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondent Mr. M.R. Kocharekar i/b Mr. U.B. Nighot for the Applicant Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State Mr. M.K. Dubey for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no. 2-original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2. By order dated 19th April 2010 passed in C.C. No. 392/N/2010, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Mumbai directed the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and to submit a report. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred C.R.A. No. 466 of 2010 before the Sessions Court. By order dated 2nd July 2010, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on the ground that the impugned order is not in the nature of final order, 1 16. cr appln 3441-10.doc hence, the revision is not maintainable. In the said order, it is further observed that in the case of Gangadhar Behera & Anr Vs State of Orissa & Anr. reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 147, it has been held that the order directing investigation under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. is not in the nature of final order and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. 3. I have perused the decision in case of Gangadhar Behera (Supra). The said decision is by a learned single Judge of Orissa High Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Khatri (Col.) & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004(1) Bom.C.R. 424 had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. In para 13 of the said decision, this Court has held that the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can be revised by the Sessions Court or even by this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. In view of this decision of the Division Bench of this Court, a revision against the order issuing direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable, hence the order dated 2nd July 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The Revision is restored to the file. 4. The Principal Sessions Judge shall not assign the Revision to the same Court which passed the order dated 2 16. cr appln 3441-10.doc 2nd July, 2010. The revision be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. 5. Application disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3