CHANGDEO KISAN JADHAV Vs. CHINDYA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Application, filed by the Second Party, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, must be rejected because it is directed against an interlocutory order, passed under that section, on March 13, 1975.

(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although, under Section 397 (2), the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders, this Court can in exercise of its powers under Section 482 interfere with an interlocutory order. This contention cannot be accepted.

(3.) SECTION 397 (2) was enacted by the Parliament because when revisions in respect of interlocutory orders are filed in High Court and admitted, the proceedings in lower Courts are in most cases stayed; and this holds up the matters until disposal of the revision petitions. The facility of having a wrong or an unjust order set aside, which was available to the litigants before the new Criminal Procedure Code, according to the practices followed by the various High Courts, was so extensively abused that it has been a major factor in delaying disposal of cases not only by months but by years during which some of the witnesses die or lose interest in the cases. Sometimes the prosecution loses its keenness. With a view to stop this abuse the Parliament has enacted Sections 392 (2) and 397 (3) as well as 399 (3 ).