Within hours after ordering the registration of an FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over allegations questioning his nationality, the Allahabad High Court on Saturday withheld its judgement stating “no such order can be sustained without first issuing notice to the accused and affording him an opportunity to be heard”.The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi paused the operation of the judgment before it could be formally signed, despite having already pronounced its operative portion a day earlier directing that an FIR be lodged. The development came after the court revisited the legal position governing proceedings arising out of applications under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In its April 17 order, uploaded shortly after the hearing, the court recorded that it had come across a Full Bench ruling in Jagannath Verma vs State of UP, which clarified the scope of revisionary jurisdiction in such matters. The precedent holds that an order passed by a magistrate rejecting a plea for registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is not interlocutory in nature and can be challenged by way of a criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC.Crucially, the Full Bench had laid down that in such revision proceedings, “the person against whom allegations are made has a right to be heard before any final decision is taken”. Relying on this principle, Justice Vidyarthi observed that the petition seeking directions for registration of an FIR against Gandhi could not be decided in his absence.The court accordingly directed that notice be issued to Rahul and listed the matter for further hearing on April 20, effectively putting its earlier direction in abeyance.The proceedings stem from a petition filed by Karnataka-based BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir, who had approached the High Court challenging a January order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Lucknow. The CJM had declined his plea seeking registration of an FIR against Rahul under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Official Secrets Act, the Passport Act and the Foreigners Act.Before the High Court, the petitioner claimed that Rahul had described himself as a British national in filings related to a UK-incorporated company, M/s Backops Ltd., set up in August 2003. It was alleged that annual returns filed in 2005 and 2006 recorded his nationality as British and reflected addresses in London and Hampshire, along with a Director Identification Number.The petitioner further relied on disclosures made during the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, asserting that Rahul, who is also the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House, had acknowledged his association with the company and a bank account in London. On this basis, it was argued that offences under the Foreigners Act, Passport Act and Official Secrets Act were made out, warranting criminal investigation.