LAWRENCE MILTON Vs. REV JOHNSON PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this petition has sought for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 295, 297, 500 of IPC against the respondents - accused. Petitioner is the complainant, who had filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 173 5/2009. Learned Magistrate taking cognizance, recording the sworn statement and also considering the documents, by order dated 25.3.2010 ordered for issue of summons. The order of issue of summons was called in question by the accused before the Revisional Court in Crl. R.P. No. 104/2010. The Revisional Court by order dated 16.12.2010 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 25.3.2010, taking cognizance and issuing summons. As against the order of allowing the revision petition, complainant is before this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that, the revisional court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against taking cognizance and also issue of process, as they are not interlocutory orders and as such, Section 397 of Cr. P.C. does not permit the revisional court to revise interlocutory orders. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 612/2012 decided on 4.4.2012 and another judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2011 CrLJ 2278 and submitted that, the order passed by the Magistrate directing the Police Officer to investigate the case is an interlocutory order and it is not barred or any direction issued to Investigating Officer under Section 156 of Cr. P.C. Taking cognizance or referring the matter are not the proceedings, which can be revised under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. and in a judgment in Crl. A. No. 612/2012, the Apex Court has held that, validity of issue of process and taking cognizance can be questioned under Section 397 of Cr. P.C.

(3.) The judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in Crl. A. No. 612/2012 is not a matter considering the scope of the revisional court under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. However, in a judgment in the matter of Om Kr. Dhankar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2012 AIR(SCW) 1821 the Apex Court relying on the earlier judgment in the matter of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 4 SCC 551 has held as under: