2022 (5) TMI 1607 - HC - Indian Laws

Forgery of valuable security and will - making possessing counterfeit seal intending to use it as genuine and by fraudulent cancellation destruction of the Will and codicil of late Parmanand Bhai Patel - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja 2017 (7) TMI 1088 - SUPREME COURT has observed that there are three categories of orders that a Court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction i.e. in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. According to Section 397(2) CrPC, revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. It is well settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as far as Section 397(2) CrPC is concerned, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage - The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) CrPC. In the case at hand, the applicant is calling in question an order of dismissal of an application filed by respondent No. 1/State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of respondent No. 6 for further examination in order to place on record certified copies of papers and proceedings with regard to the judicial proceedings in relation to the alleged forged Will as well as estate/assets of late Parmanand Bhai Patel. It is apparent that the order under challenge in this revision does not culminate the criminal proceedings as a whole or finally decides the rights and liabilities of the parties, therefore, it cannot be said to be a final order or an intermediate order. The impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature. It is apparent that the impugned order passed while dismissing application filed by respondent No.1/State under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness is an interlocutory order and in the considered opinion of this Court no revision petition against such an order is maintainable in view of the provision of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. The revision is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges.
3. Nature of the order under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. - interlocutory or not.
4. Maintainability of revision petition against an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.:
The applicant/complainant No. 1 challenged the order dated 5.10.2020, whereby the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 1/State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The application sought the recall of respondent No. 6 for further examination to place on record certified copies of papers and proceedings related to the alleged forged Will and estate/assets of late Parmanand Bhai Patel. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the complaint was being tried under Sections 225-237 of Cr.P.C., which do not provide for recalling any witness or complainant prior to framing of charges or recording evidence before framing charges.

2. Applicability of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges:
The applicant argued that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is couched in wide terms and applies to any stage of all proceedings, enquiries, and trials under Cr.P.C. The absence of a provision for recall of a witness under Sections 225-237 of Cr.P.C. does not denude the court of its powers under Section 311. The applicant cited the case of Boby alias Sanjeev Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 Cri LJ 3662, where it was held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised not only for the examination of witnesses but also to order the production of any document if necessary for the just decision in the case. The applicant contended that the prosecution should not be deprived of its opportunity to prove the case with the best possible evidence and that exercising the power under Section 311 at the stage of framing charges would prevent unnecessary delays.

3. Nature of the order under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. - interlocutory or not:
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory, hence no revision would lie against such an order. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2017 SC 3620, which categorized orders as final, intermediate, and interlocutory, stating that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of final and intermediate orders but not interlocutory orders.

4. Maintainability of revision petition against an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.:
The court examined whether the order under challenge was interlocutory. It referenced several cases, including M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, to determine that an order that does not culminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties is interlocutory. The court concluded that the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was interlocutory, as it did not decide any substantive right of the litigating parties.

Conclusion:
The court held that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and, therefore, no revision petition against such an order is maintainable under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as not maintainable.