SATYANARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused persons who are proceeded under S. 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the G.R. Case No. 21/85 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banpur. Charges were framed against petitioner No. 15 under Ss. 4 (viii), 7(d) of the PCR Act by order of the trial court dated 25-1-1988. In the present revision application, the petitioners pray that this order of framing charges against the accused persons be set aside. At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confines his argument to petitioners Nos, 1, 2, 12 and 15 and does not press the application for the rest. This Criminal Revision has been filed under S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation was initiated at the instance of one Suryanarayan Sethi of village Pumuraput Sasan. He lodged the FIR on 29-9-1985. Pursuant to the investigation, chargesheet was filed on 5-5-1986 against the present petitioners. On 8-10-1985 an affidavit was filed by the informant to exclude the names of the petitioners 1, 2, 12 and 15 on the ground that he had not stated the names of these four petitioners in his FIR. According to the informant, the FIR was made orally by him which was reduced to writing by the Sub-Inspector of Police, the contents of which s were neither read over nor explained to him and he had inserted the names of these four petitioners in the said FlR. On the basis of the FIR and the investigation report submitted by the police, the trial court passed his order dated 25-1-1988 framing charges against the accused persons.

(2.) This order framing the charges against the accused persons is no doubt an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the suit or collateral to the issues but not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue. An intermediate order is one which is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. An order framing of the charge being an intermediate order falls squarely within the ordinary and natural meaning of term interlocutory order' as used in Code of Criminal procedure. The order of framing the charges is, therefore, purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the proceedings and the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. This view finds support from the judgment reported in AIR 1980 SC 962 :1980 Cri LJ 690). (V. C. Shukla v. State through C. B. I.) in which case the Apex Court considering a large number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and in English Courts Same to hold thus :

(3.) Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :