DADHIBAL PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. SUNITA JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners herein who are aggrieved by the order dtd. 21/3/2014 passed by the Court of the learned 10 Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.249/2013, by which the revision filed by the respondent herein was illegally allowed and set aside the order dtd. 8/4/2013 of the learned JMFC Jabalpur passed in MJC No.4/2011.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is the husband and the petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law of the respondent. The respondent filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners. In the said case, she moved an application asking the learned Trial Court to call for the record of a "missing person's case" being case no.20/2010, which was registered at Police Station Belbag, Jabalpur relating to the alleged elopement of the petitioner no.1 with another lady. In that case the father of the lady had filed the aforementioned missing person's report, in which the petitioner and the lady alleged to have appeared before the Police and handed over certain documents. Admittedly, the details relating to the said documents are not given in the application. The learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 8/4/2013 dismissed the application filed by the respondent on the ground that the same is vague as it is not specific of the nature and type of documents required from the police in "missing person's case" no.20/2010. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a criminal revision in which the impugned order was passed and said order set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and in consequence thereof the file of the missing person's caseno.20/2010 reached the Trial Court for the purpose of confronting the petitioners during their testimony.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad in law as the same falls foul of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in 2009(5) SCC 153 Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam. The facts in that case related to an application that was moved under sec. 91 Cr.P.c. and another under sec. 311 Cr.P.C. where the applications after being rejected, criminal revisions were filed before the High Court, in which the impugned orders were passed allowing the revision petition. In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court has held that orders passed disposing of application under sec. 91 Cr.P.C. and under sec. 311 Cr.P.C. were orders of a interlocutory nature against which a, revision under sec. 397 was not maintainable at all in view of sec. 397 (2) Cr.P.C. He has also relief upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254 - Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and others, where the Supreme Court referring to previous judgments notable amongst them being Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashta (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Amarnath Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137, wherein the Supreme Court had embarked upon a enquiry to lay down the distinction between an interim order, interlocutory order and orders of an intermediate nature. In paragraph 11, however, the Supreme Court held that an objection regarding maintainability of the revision petition should have been raised before the Court which invoked such a revisional jurisdiction and that as the same was not done, the Supreme Court left the question undecided.