SHARDA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by Sharda Narain, the maker of the F.LR. dated 4.4.84, annexure I, for the offence punishable under sections 363/364, IP.C.

(2.) According to the F.I.R. Sant Kumar, accused-opposite party No. 2 had kidnapped Kumari Jayanti aged 16 years, the sister of Sharda Narain applicant After the accused surrendered in the court on 1.5.84, Km. Jayanti was produced in the court on 10.5.84 by Ramesh Chandra Gupta, father of the accused and was lodged in the Nan Niketan, Etawah. Later on 17.5.84, on the application of Km. J ayanti she was delivered to the custody of one Ram Bali, uncle of the accused on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/ undertaking to produce Km. Jayanti as and when required by the court. On that very date, i.e. 17.5.84, the Investigating Officer made an application before Judicial Magistrate I, Farukhabad fur a direction to Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti to enable the Investigating Officer to get her medically examined during the course of investigation. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 1.6.84, annexure 2, allowed the said application and directed Ram Bali to produce the girl in the court on 11.6.84 so that her medical examination could be got done. Sant Kumar accused filled Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1984, Sant Kumar v. State of U.P. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the said order dated 1.6.84. The learned Sessions Judge Shri D. N. Shukla vide order dated 15.9.84 annexure 3, allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 1.6.84 with the result that Ram Bali was no longer required to produce Km. Jayanti in the court for medical examination.

(3.) Sharda Narain, feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 15.9.84 has preferred this revision. The grounds taken in this revision are I-that the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 1.6.84 requiring Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti in the court to enable the 1.0. to get her medically examined during the course of investigation was an interlocutory order and under section 397(2) Cr. P.C. a revision against that order was not maintainable; (2) that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge amounted to interference with the investigation inasmuch as it had the effect of hampering the investigation.