Delhi District Court
Mohit Bansal vs State Through Commissioner Of Police on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-008596-2025
CR No. 139/2025
MOHIT BANSAL
S/o Sh. Dinesh Bansal,
R/o: H No.44, Sukhdham Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085. ......Revisionist
VS.
1. STATE
State of NCT of Delhi,
Through Commissioner of Police.
2. DIVYA SINGHANIA
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Singhania,
R/o 43, Sukhdham Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
.....Respondents
Date of institution of revision : 02.07.2025
Date on which judgment pronounced : 29.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed by the revisionist under section 440 BNSS for setting-
aside the order dated 27.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order ) passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC-04, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in CC No.1839/2024 in case titled as 'Divya Singhania Vs. State' whereby the Ld. Trial Court has allowed the application under section 175 (3) BNSS and has directed the SHO PS Prashant Vihar to register FIR against the revisionist / accused Mohit Bansal.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
CR Revision No.139/2025 Digitally signed by Page No.1 of 5
Moht Bansal Vs State & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.07.29
16:55:46 +0530
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are not repeated here as same has been succinctly mentioned in the order dated 27.06.2025, against which present revision petition is filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist submitted that the aforesaid order directing the SHO PS Prashant Vihar to register FIR was passed on 27.06.2025 and in compliance thereof, an FIR bearing No.407/2025 PS Prashant Vihar U/s 354(C)/509/506/34 IPC has been registered on 28.06.2025. By the time the above-mentioned revision petition was filed by the petitioner on 01.07.2025, the FIR in compliance of order dated 27.06.2025 was already registered.
4. It is no longer res integra that revision petition against the order passed under section 175 (3) BNSS for directing registration of FIR is maintainable but same is maintainable before the registration of FIR by the SHO in compliance of the order and not after the registration of FIR, as, after the registration of FIR only Hon'ble High Court has power to quash the FIR and Sessions Court has no power to quash the FIR. However, Ld. Counsel for revisionist submits that revision petition even after registration of FIR is maintainable. Therefore, this Court shall first decide the issue as to whether or not the present revision petition is maintainable.
5. In Writ Petition No.2517/2022 titled "Arun P. Gidh Vs. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors", wherein reference was made by Ld. Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay to larger Bench of three Judges of the same court regarding "Whether remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, is available to the person aggrieved by an order directing investigation, to be made pursuant to an order passed under Section 175(3) of Cr.PC.?"
SUSHIL KUMAR Digitally signed by CR Revision No.139/2025 SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.2 of 5 Moht Bansal Vs State & Anr.
Date: 2025.07.29 16:55:50 +0530
6. The Three Judge Bench in the reference petition framed two questions which are mentioned at para 45 :
"(i) Whether a revision u/s. 397 of the Code is an efficacious remedy against an order directing investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Code passed by the Magistrate even after it results in registration of the FIR and further proceedings pursuant to such investigation ?
(ii) To what extent the revisional court can interfere with the subsequent actions and proceedings in the investigation after registration of the FIR pursuant to a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code ?
7. After discussing the relevant law on the reference point, the Hon'ble High Court in Para 126, 127 and 128 gave the conclusion of their discussion which are reproduced herein below:-
"Para 126.
(a) If the FIR is yet not registered, an interim order passed by the revisional court, staying effect and operation of the impugned order under Section 156(3), will have full play and the investigating agency cannot proceed to register the FIR and enter into investigation lest the order passed by the revisional court would be denuded of the meaning and content.
(b) Such in interim order before the registration of the FIR will operate with full force and vigor, irrespective of the nature of the infirmity in the impugned order which weighed with teh revisional court to stay such an order.
(c) On the other hand, if the FIR has already been registered, before the revisional court passes an interim order, then the nature of the infirmity in the impugned order may become relevant.
(d) If the revisional court finds that the impugned order suffers from jurisdicational error, (of the nature referred to in Pra nos.119,120 and 122 above), in our considered view, the revisional court must be construed to have the power to stay further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR if the matter is still at the state of investigation.
(e) We hasten to add that while passing such an order of stay of the proceedings at the stage of investigation, the revisional Court ought to record reasons which weighed with the court to hold that there appears a jurisdictional error in passing CR Revision No.139/2025 Digitally Page No.3 of 5 Moht Bansal Vs State & Anr. signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.29 16:55:55 an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and thereupon, in terms, direct that the further proceedings be stayed.
(f) However, where the investigation culminates into lodging of the chargesheet and/or cognizance has been taken by the jurisdictional court, the interim order or final order passed by the revisional court setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3), will not have the effect of quashing the resultant prosecution.
Para 127. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Desai that the view that after FIR is registered revision is not an efficacious remedy, would render the statutory remedy of revision redundant. The order passed by the revisional court setting aside a direction for investigation, even after registration of FIR, cannot be said to be bereft of any utility. If such an order is passed before the completion of investigation, the investigating agency may take the same into account in determining the course the investigation shall culminate into. If such an order is passed, post lodging of the chargesheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate may have the benefit of the said order at the stage of taking cognizance or during the course of the inquiry, as envisaged by the Code. The High Court may also have due regard to the order of the revisional Court while considering the prayer for quashing the FIR and / or prosecution in exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction. Para 128. The conspectus of aforesaid discussion is that in our view, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Kailash Dattatraya Jadhav (supra), that in a case where on the basis of an order under sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code, FIR is registered, the remedy of revision under the Code, is not an efficacious remedy, lays down the correct position in law."
8. After concluding it discussion, Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay gave the answers to the questions framed in para 45 which is reproduced herein below :-
"Para 129. We are, therefore, inclined to answer question (i) in the negative.
As regards question (ii) in our view, the revisional Court can interfere with an order under Section 156(3) at the stage and to the extent indicated in para 126."
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR CR Revision No.139/2025 KUMAR Date: Page No.4 of 5 Moht Bansal Vs State & Anr. 2025.07.29 16:55:59 +0530
9. So, as per the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay the revision petition is not an efficacious remedy against an order under Section 156(3) for registration of FIR, if, FIR got registered; revisional court can only interfere if order suffers from jurisdictional errors like non filing of supportive affidavit along-with application u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC as ordained by "Priyanka Srivastav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.", (2015) 6 SCC 287, or lack of previous sanction as required before registration of FIR or in case of medical negligence where prior opinion from independent and competent doctor in Govt. Service not obtained; facts of the present complaint shows that there is no such jurisdictional error in the present case.
10. Once an FIR has been registered only Hon'ble High Court has power to quash it u/s. 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC) and Sessions Court has no power to quash the FIR or stop the investigation or interefere in the investigation. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly; once an FIR has been registered no revision petition against the same is maintainable as in case revision petition is allowed and order directing registration of FIR is set aside it will tantamount to quashing of FIR.
11. In view of the above discussion, present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
12. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
13. Revision petition be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Sushil Kumar) On 29st of July, 2025. Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Digitally Rohini Courts: Delhi.
signed by
SUSHIL 29.07.2025.
SUSHIL KUMAR
CR Revision No.139/2025 KUMAR Date: Page No.5 of 5
Moht Bansal Vs State & Anr. 2025.07.29
16:56:04
+0530