2022 (8) TMI 1475 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - Locus standi to institute the criminal revision - murder - appellant is the defacto complainant - revisional jurisdiction of High Court - HELD THAT - The basis of the order of the trial court, which has been upheld by the High Court, namely, that the statement of the appellant is a statement under Section 161 CrPC is erroneous. The statement of the appellant, in fact, was the basis on which the FIR was registered. Hence, it was legitimately open to the prosecution to have the statement proved and marked as an exhibit during the course of the trial. There would be a serious miscarriage of justice in the course of the criminal trial if the statement were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the basis of the registration of the FIR. The order of the trial judge cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the substantive course of the prosecution. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The principles which have been enunciated in Sheetala Prasad 2009 (12) TMI 1060 - SUPREME COURT have been recently relied upon by this Court in MENOKA MALIK AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 2018 (8) TMI 2141 - SUPREME COURT to hold that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a revision petition filed by the first informant where the trial court overlooked material evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20 December 2021 is incorrect in holding that the appellant did not have locus to institute the criminal revision against the order of the trial court. The order of the trial court dated 3 October 2019 and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20 December 2021 is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the criminal revision petition filed by the appellant.
2. Classification of the trial court's order as an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) CrPC.
3. Legitimacy of marking the appellant's statement as an exhibit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Criminal Revision Petition:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal revision petition on the ground of maintainability, stating that the appellant, as the defacto complainant, had no locus standi to file the revision petition. The High Court referenced Section 372 of the CrPC, which limits the rights of a victim/complainant to challenge orders only in specific circumstances such as acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation. However, the Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of a High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and can be exercised suo motu. Therefore, a third party, including a complainant, can invoke this jurisdiction. The Court cited precedents such as *K Pandurangan v SSR Velusamy* and *Sheetala Prasad v Sri Kant*, which support the maintainability of revision petitions by private complainants in certain circumstances, including when evidence is wrongly excluded.

2. Classification of the Trial Court's Order:
The High Court upheld the trial court's order as an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) CrPC, which bars revision petitions against such orders. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the order in question substantially affects the rights of the parties and cannot be considered merely procedural or interlocutory. The Court referenced *Amar Nath v State of Haryana* and *VC Shukla v State*, which clarify that orders affecting substantial rights or the course of the trial are not interlocutory and thus revisable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the order declining to mark the appellant's statement as an exhibit affects the substantive course of the prosecution and thus is not an interlocutory order.

3. Legitimacy of Marking the Appellant's Statement as an Exhibit:
The trial court refused to mark the appellant's statement as an exhibit, considering it a statement under Section 161 CrPC based on the testimony of PW 2. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, noting that the appellant's statement was the basis for registering the FIR and thus should be treated as such. The Court stated that excluding this statement would result in a miscarriage of justice, as it forms the foundation of the prosecution's case. The Court directed the trial court to allow the Public Prosecutor to prove and mark the appellant's statement as an exhibit during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order dated 3 October 2019, and the High Court's judgment dated 20 December 2021. The trial court was directed to permit the marking of the appellant's statement as an exhibit. The Court also instructed the trial court to conclude the trial by 31 March 2023. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.