2019 (10) TMI 1579 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - permission to an accused to intervene during the enquiry - HELD THAT - Law on the point of intervention by the prospective accused at pre-summoning stage in a complaint case before Ld. MM is well settled by series of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Perusal of the judgment in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra 1963 (1) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT reveals that Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that permitting an accused to intervene during the enquiry would frustrate its very object and that is why the legislature has made no specific provision to this effect. The order passed by the Ld. MM on 01.08.2019 is clearly an interlocutory order as she has not decided the application under Section 340 CrPC moved by the respondent finally but only adjourned the same and observed that by moving such application, the respondent i.e. prospective accused cannot stall the proceedings in the main complaint case and, therefore, no revision lies against the said order to the Ld. Sessions Judge. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has, therefore, wrongly entertained the revision petition and stayed the proceedings of the criminal complaint. The order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, is therefore, set aside and proceedings pending before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge are quashed being not in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC.
2. Legality of the ex-parte order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. ASJ staying proceedings in the complaint case.
3. Right of a prospective accused to participate in pre-summoning proceedings.
4. Application of Section 340 CrPC at the pre-summoning stage.
5. Classification of the order dated 01.08.2019 as an interlocutory order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the ex-parte order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. ASJ. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an equally efficacious remedy. However, the court found the judgments cited by the respondent distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case and proceeded to consider the petition on merits.

2. Legality of the Ex-Parte Order Dated 25.09.2019:
The Ld. ASJ stayed the proceedings in the complaint case on the ground that the respondent had not been heard before the order dated 01.08.2019 was passed by the Ld. MM. The petitioner contended that the prospective accused has no right to be heard at the pre-summoning stage, and the stay order was erroneous. The court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the Ld. ASJ's order was passed without proper application of judicial mind and was contrary to settled legal principles.

3. Right of a Prospective Accused to Participate in Pre-Summoning Proceedings:
The court extensively cited precedents, including "Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra," "Nagawaa v. V.S. Konjalgi," "Chitra Narain v. NDTV & Ors.," and "Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel," to establish that a prospective accused has no right to participate in pre-summoning proceedings. The court emphasized that permitting such participation would frustrate the very object of the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC.

4. Application of Section 340 CrPC at the Pre-Summoning Stage:
The petitioner argued that the application under Section 340 CrPC filed by the respondent was a tactic to delay the complaint case. The court noted that the Ld. MM had not decided the application under Section 340 CrPC but had only adjourned it, observing that the proceedings in the main complaint case could not be stalled due to the filing of such an application. The court held that the application under Section 340 CrPC at the pre-summoning stage was not maintainable and should be considered sparingly.

5. Classification of the Order Dated 01.08.2019 as an Interlocutory Order:
The court classified the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Ld. MM as an interlocutory order, which does not decide anything finally. Citing "Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam" and "Amarnath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.," the court concluded that an interlocutory order is not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. Consequently, the Ld. ASJ had wrongly entertained the revision petition and stayed the proceedings of the criminal complaint.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. ASJ and quashed the proceedings pending before the Ld. ASJ. The petition was disposed of accordingly, reaffirming that a prospective accused has no right to participate in pre-summoning proceedings and that interlocutory orders are not subject to revision.