RATAN SINGH Vs. KUSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ratan Singh, accused applicant, has filed this application under Section 4R2, Criminal Procedure- Code to seek quashing of (1) order dated 6.10.81 of IV AddI. Sessions Judge, Aligarh passed in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1981 (2) the order dated 20.12-80 of Shri K. P. Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, passed in Criminal case No. 820 of 1980, summoning Ratan Singh accused-applicant for offences punishable under Sections 366/376 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and (3) the complaint dated 8-10-80 filed by, Smt. Kusum Suman (wife of Darshan Singh), opposite party No.1, against Mohd. Ali and two others (including Ratan, Singh) under Sections 3631366/376, 120-B, Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Sri K. P. Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate Aligarh.

(2.) After the above complaint was filed, statement under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. Thereafter the accused including Ratan Singh applicant were summoned by order dated 20-12-80. Feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order the present applicant Ratan Singh along with other co-accused Chand Bihari, 0. P. No. 2, filed Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1981 to get the impugned order of summoning them set aside. The IV AddI. Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision on 6-10-81 holding that the impugned order dated 20-12-80 summoning the accused revisionists was an inter-locutory order against which no revision lay as provided under Section 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code. Feeling aggrieved, against the order dated 6-10-81 the present applicant has filed the present-application to get the above-mentiontid reliefs.

(3.) It is argued that the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the order summoning the accused was an interlocutory order is erroneous. For this reliance has been placed on the decision in Amarnath and others v. State of Haryana and others1, in which it was held: The term interlocutory order in Section 397 (2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the- liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties canTt be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court, against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397. Thus for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2). But orders which are matters of, moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.TIt was further observed:The order of Magistrate summoning the appellants was one which was a matter of moment. If the appellants were not summoned then they could not have faced the trial at all, but by compelling the appellants to face a trial without proper application of mind could not be held to be an interlocutory matter but one which decided a serious question as to the rights of the appellants to be put on trial. That being the position, a revision against the order was fully competent under Section 397(1) or under Section 482, because the scope of both these sections in a matter of this kind is more or less the same. In view of the above decision there remains no doubt that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 2012-8Q summoning the accused applicant was not an interlocutory order as envisaged under Section 397 (2), Criminal Procedure Code and could be challenged in revision under Section 397(1), Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sessions Judge. That settles the matter and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 6. 10.81 is not legal or valid.