SANT KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. MOVIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 7/11/08 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koriya in Criminal Revision No. 46/07 by which the petitioner's revision against issuance of process of a complaint has been dismissed. A complaint was filed by the non-applicant No. 1 against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 506, 294 IPC including 341 read with Section 34 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur. After recording statements of the complainant's witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 31/5/07 registered offence against the petitioner and directed issuance of process. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge, assailing the correctness and validity of order of taking cognizance and issuance of process. However, vide impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision holding that the revision petition itself is not maintainable as issuance of process by registering criminal case is merely an interlocutory stage and therefore, provisions under Section 397 (2) CrPC would be attracted and only remedy for the petitioner is to take recourse to provisions under Section 482 CrPC.

(2.) The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on complaint made before the Magistrate, the statements were recorded whereupon the Magistrate, after applying its mind, has come to the conclusion that a case of registering offence is made out and therefore, taken cognizance by registering offence under Section 294 and 506 IPC against the petitioner has directed issuance of summons which cannot be said a mere interlocutory order in the sense, it has been used under Section 397 (2) CrPC, so as to bar exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 1028 and Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 7 SCC 338. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below has completely misconstrued the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, 2009 2 SCC 370. The record show that upon complaint being filed by the complainant, the Magistrate recorded preliminary statements of the complainant witnesses and thereafter, recorded that a case for trial is made out registering offence under Section 294/506 IPC and directed issuance of summons thereby initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It is against this order, that the petitioner preferred revision invoking provision under Section 397 CrPC.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 supports the order passed by the learned revisional Court.