Sunil Singh Bhadouriya vs Smt Priyanka Singh Bhadauriya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
1 MCRC-36345-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36345 of 2025
SUNIL SINGH BHADOURIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT PRIYANKA SINGH BHADAURIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate and Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for respondent [R-1].
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the legality,
propriety and correctness of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the
learned 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision
No.175/2025 and the consequential order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in UNCR No. …../2024,
whereby the Station House Officer, Police Station Maharajpura, District
Gwalior, has been directed to register an FIR against the present petitioners.
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1/complainant filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
2 MCRC-36345-2025
the learned JMFC, Gwalior on 27.01.2024. In the said application, it was

alleged that she had earlier lodged a report at Police Station Maharajpura on
19.03.2023, which was registered as Crime No.222/2023 for offences
punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During the
course of investigation in the said crime, offences under Sections 498A and
323/34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were also added. It was further alleged that on 18.12.2023 at about 7:00 PM,
when the complainant was present at her residence situated at F.H. 484, D.D.
Nagar, Gwalior, her husband Sunil Singh Bhadoriya, her sister-in-law
Neelam Chauhan and Smt. Upasana Singh Parihar entered the house in
furtherance of their common intention and pressurized her to compromise the
pending dowry-related case. Upon her refusal, it was alleged that they
assaulted her with kicks and fists, thereby causing injuries. It was also
alleged that during the altercation, Smt. Upasana Singh Parihar snatched the
gold chain worn by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the
driving licence of the present petitioner fell at the spot and came into her
possession. It was stated that her father and one Shashi Kant Bhargava
intervened in the matter. It was also alleged that when she called the police,
her husband forcibly snatched her mobile phone and threw it under the sofa,
and all the accused persons threatened that if she reported the matter to the
police, they would kill her daughter.The complainant thereafter approached
Police Station Maharajpura and narrated the incident, but the Station House
Officer allegedly informed her that since an FIR in relation to the dowry
dispute had already been registered, no further FIR would be lodged. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
3 MCRC-36345-2025
further averred that she sent a written complaint by speed post to the Police

Station on 19.12.2023; however, no action was taken. Consequently, she
filed the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Upon
receiving the application, the learned JMFC called for a status report
regarding the allegations. After considering the material available on record
and the submissions advanced, the learned JMFC rejected the application
vide order dated 22.10.2024. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 preferred
Criminal Revision No.23/2025, which was partly allowed vide order dated
14.02.2025, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court after setting aside
the order of the JMFC. In compliance with the order of the revisional Court,
the learned JMFC reconsidered the matter and, after examining the
allegations and the material placed on record, again rejected the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.05.2025. Against the said
order, respondent No.1 filed Criminal Revision No.175/2025 before the
learned 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, contending that the
learned JMFC had failed to properly appreciate the facts and had committed
an error of law in rejecting the application. The learned Revisional Court,
vide impugned order dated 07.07.2025, allowed the revision, set aside the
order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the JMFC, and remanded the matter with a
direction to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said order, the learned JMFC, Gwalior, vide order
dated 17.07.2025, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station
Maharajpura, District Gwalior, to register an FIR against the present
petitioners. In compliance thereof, FIR bearing Crime No.451/2025 for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
4 MCRC-36345-2025
offences punishable under Sections 195A, 294, 323, 34, 380, 451 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the petitioners on
06.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the
learned Revisional Court and the consequential order dated 17.07.2025
passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order
dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned 22nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.175/2025 and the consequential order
dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gwalior, directing registration of FIR against the present petitioners, are
manifestly illegal, contrary to settled principles of law and unsustainable in
the eyes of law.
4. It is submitted that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Revisional Court was bound to comply with the mandate of sub-section (2)
of Section 401 of the Code, which expressly provides that no order to the
prejudice of the accused or any other person shall be made unless he has had
an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own
defence. The petitioners, being the persons directly prejudiced by the
impugned revisional order inasmuch as the said order culminated in a
direction for registration of FIR against them were entitled to an effective
opportunity of hearing before the Revisional Court. However, admittedly, no
such opportunity was afforded to the present petitioners before setting aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
5 MCRC-36345-2025
the well-reasoned order of the learned JMFC dated 08.05.2025 and directing

action under Section 156(3) of the Code. The failure to grant an opportunity
of hearing strikes at the very root of the revisional proceedings and renders
the impugned order legally unsustainable.
5. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Santhakumari and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. reported in (2023)
15 SCC 440 has categorically held that in a criminal revision arising out of
proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code, where the order is likely to
prejudice the proposed accused, an opportunity of hearing is mandatory in
view of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. An order which would adversely affect the
rights of a person suspected of having committed the offence, compliance
with the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate is indispensable.
Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Jagannath Verma And
Ors. vs The State Of U.P. reported in AIR 2014 ALLAHABAD 214, has
authoritatively laid down that an order passed by a Magistrate rejecting an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code for registration of a case and
investigation is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It has further been held that in such
revisional proceedings, the prospective accused or the person suspected of
having committed the offence is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before
a decision is taken in the criminal revision. The ratio of the said judgment
squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
6. It is further submitted that in the present matter, the learned JMFC
had twice considered the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
6 MCRC-36345-2025
due application of mind to the allegations and the material available on

record, had rejected the same. The order rejecting an application under
Section 156(3) is not an interlocutory order but a final order insofar as the
rights of the complainant at that stage are concerned, and therefore, it is
revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. However, once the revisional
jurisdiction was invoked by the complainant, and the Revisional Court
proposed to reverse the order and direct action which would result in
registration of an FIR against the present petitioners, the petitioners acquired
a valuable right of hearing under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C.
7. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court, in complete
disregard of the statutory mandate and settled legal position, proceeded to
allow the revision and remand the matter without issuing notice to or
affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. The impugned
order, therefore, stands vitiated on account of violation of principles of
natural justice as well as non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the subsequent order dated 17.07.2025
passed by the learned JMFC directing registration of FIR, being a direct
outcome of the illegal revisional order, is also rendered unsustainable and
liable to be set aside. It is a settled principle of law that when the foundation
is removed, the superstructure must fall. In view of the aforesaid
submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated
07.07.2025 passed by the learned 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior
in Criminal Revision No.175/2025 and the consequential order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
7 MCRC-36345-2025
17.07.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the present
petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold,
inasmuch as the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned
Revisional Court and the consequential order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the
learned JMFC merely direct registration of an FIR in exercise of powers
under Section 156(3) of the Code, which is a pre-cognizance stage, and the
stage of taking cognizance has not yet commenced. It is contended that at the
stage of directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the proposed
accused has no vested right of hearing, as the proceedings are only meant to
set the criminal law in motion and to ensure a fair and proper investigation.
The revisional court, while examining the correctness of the order rejecting
the application under Section 156(3), was concerned only with the legality
and propriety of the Magistrate’s refusal to order investigation, and the
direction issued does not determine the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners.
It is further submitted that registration of FIR does not ipso facto prejudice
the petitioners, who will have adequate opportunity to put forth their defence
at the appropriate stage in accordance with law, and therefore, the plea of
violation of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. is misconceived. The State accordingly
submits that no case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is
made out.
9. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the present
proceedings are wholly misconceived and are not maintainable in law. It is a
settled proposition that a proposed accused, against whom an application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
8 MCRC-36345-2025
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is moved, has no

right of hearing either at the stage of consideration of the said application by
the learned Magistrate or at the stage of any proceedings arising therefrom,
including revision before the revisional court. The scheme of the Code
makes it abundantly clear that prior to the stage of summoning, a person
against whom allegations are made does not acquire the status of an accused
entitled to participate in the proceedings.
10. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed
the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Father Thomas
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (72) ACC 564 (Allahabad) (Full Bench) ,
wherein it has been categorically held that an accused has no right to be
heard before he is summoned by the Court under the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Full Bench authoritatively declared that till the stage of
summoning, the person against whom allegations are levelled has no right to
raise any objection and consequently cannot claim a right to challenge any
order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prior to his summoning. The law
laid down therein has attained finality and is binding. It is also well
established that an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., directing the police to register a First Information Report and to
investigate the matter, is an interlocutory order in nature. Such an order does
not determine any rights of the parties nor it adjudicates upon the guilt or
innocence of any individual. It merely sets the criminal law in motion by
directing investigation in accordance with law. Therefore, in view of the bar
contained under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., a revision against such an order is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
9 MCRC-36345-2025
not maintainable. In the present case, the learned Magistrate exercised

jurisdiction vested under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed registration of
the FIR and investigation. At this preliminary stage, the petitioners being
only a proposed accused, had no vested or statutory right to be heard. In light
of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is submitted that the revision
petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The controversy involved in the present petition lies in a narrow
compass, as to whether the learned Revisional Court could have set aside the
order of the learned JMFC rejecting the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and directing action thereunder without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the present petitioners, who stand directly prejudiced by such
order.
13. It is not in dispute that the learned JMFC, Gwalior had, upon due
consideration of the allegations and the material placed on record, rejected
the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.05.2025.
The said order was assailed by respondent No.1 before the learned 22nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.175/2025. By
the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, the learned Revisional Court allowed
the revision, set aside the order of the learned JMFC and remanded the
matter with a direction to proceed in accordance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
which ultimately culminated in the order dated 17.07.2025 directing
registration of FIR and the consequent registration of Crime No.451/2025
against the present petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
10 MCRC-36345-2025
14. The pivotal question thus is whether such an order, which results in

registration of an FIR against identified individuals, could have been passed
in revision without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Sub-section (2)
of Section 401 Cr.P.C. in clear and unambiguous terms mandates that no
order to the prejudice of the accused or any other person shall be made by
the Revisional Court unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence. The expression “any other
person” employed in the provision is of wide amplitude and is not confined
only to a person who has already been summoned as an accused. The
legislative intent is to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice
wherever a revisional order is likely to adversely affect the rights of a person.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santhakumari (supra) has
categorically held that in a criminal revision arising out of proceedings under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., where the order is likely to prejudice the proposed
accused, compliance with Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. is mandatory and an
opportunity of hearing must be afforded. It has been observed that even at a
pre-cognizance stage, if the revisional order has the effect of adversely
impacting the rights of a person suspected of having committed the offence,
the statutory mandate cannot be diluted. The Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad in Jagannath Verma (supra) has authoritatively held that an order
passed by a Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
for registration of a case and investigation is not an interlocutory order and
is, therefore, amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
The Court further held that when such a revision is entertained and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
11 MCRC-36345-2025
revisional court proposes to pass an order which may result in registration of

an FIR or otherwise adversely affect the person named in the complaint, the
bar contained under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. squarely applies and an
opportunity of hearing to the prospective accused is mandatory.
16. In the present case, the impugned revisional order has directly
resulted in a direction for registration of FIR against the petitioners. Such a
direction cannot be said to be innocuous. Registration of an FIR entails
investigation, possible arrest, and other coercive steps permissible under law.
Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the order passed by the Revisional Court
is to the clear prejudice of the present petitioners. In such circumstances, the
requirement of affording them an opportunity of hearing under Section
401(2) Cr.P.C. was mandatory.
17. The contention advanced on behalf of the State and respondent
No.1 that at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the proposed accused has no
right of hearing before the Magistrate, though supported by judicial
precedents, does not answer the issue arising in the present case. The
question here is not of hearing before the Magistrate at the stage of
consideration of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but of
compliance with the statutory mandate governing revisional jurisdiction.
Once the matter entered the revisional domain and the Revisional Court
proposed to reverse an order in a manner prejudicial to identified persons,
the embargo contained in Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. came into full operation.
18. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no notice was issued to the present
petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7588
12 MCRC-36345-2025
passing the impugned order dated 07.07.2025. The order, therefore, stands

vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of
Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. as well as violation of principles of natural justice.
The consequential order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned JMFC
directing registration of FIR, being a direct outcome of the said revisional
order, cannot survive independently.
19. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned 22nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.175/2025 and the consequential
order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior are hereby set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Revisional Court to decide
Criminal Revision No.175/2025 afresh in accordance with law after
impleading the present petitioners as parties and affording them a reasonable
opportunity of hearing.
20. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the allegations and all issues are left open to be decided by the
Revisional Court independently.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
3:38:22 PM