9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplaint. The said part of order dated 23.8.2011 was set aside by the Sessions Court vide order dated 3.10.2011 in Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2011. 4. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.11.2011, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the aforesaid complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. for want of sufficient evidence. The order dated 23.11.2011 was set aside by learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 9.1.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2011 observing that prima facie case for taking cognizance of complaint is made out. Thereafter, Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance on the aforesaid complaint against accused No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 16.1.2012. 5. The order (Annexure P-4) dated 16.1.2012 was challenged by accused No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 360 of 2012 and 763 of 2012 whereby this Court vide common order (Annexure P-5) dated 10.7.2012 partly allowed the aforesaid revisions observing that the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7) dated 13.3.2018 allowed production of several documents as prayed for in the applications filed by respondent No. 1/State. 12. During the course of arguments on framing of charge on the aforesaid complaint, respondent No. 1/State filed an application 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, which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 5.10.2020 on the ground that the complaint was being tried in accordance with the provisions of Sections 225-237 of Cr.P.C. which do not provide for recalling of any witness or complainant prior to framing of charge(s) or recording evidence before framing of charges, hence this revision. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that it is a settled position of law that the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. have been couched in wide terms and apply to any stage of all proceedings, enquiries and trial under Cr.P.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 SCC 190 and decision of this Court in Heeralal @ Nimma S/o Ram Kumar Golhari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1997 (1) MPLJ 550. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has raised an objection that as per the provision of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. In the present case, the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is purely an interlocutory order, hence no revision would lie against the impugned order and the present revision is barred on this ground alone. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2017 SC 3620 has submitted that the Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction or an intermediate order. It is further submitted that after the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and prior to the framing of the charges, as there is neither an inquiry, trial or other proceedings, the power under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory order. 18. 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. If the order under challenge culminates the criminal proceedings as a whole or finally decides the rights and liabilities of the parties then the order passed is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory 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. See: M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim, 2001(2) JIC 685 (SC); K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134; V.C. Shukla vs. State through CBI, 1980 SCC (Criminal) 695 (Four-Judge Bench); Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 (Three-Judge Bench). 19. The order summoning or ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
