D.S. MOHI Vs. P.S. MIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali; whereby the Criminal Revision No.184 of 2019, filed by the petitioner; in complaint No.33 dated 16.01.2015, was declined only on the ground of maintainability.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act impleading the respondent as an accused; for the default of three cheques for an amount totaling Rs.1.75 crores. The petitioner led his evidence before the trial Court. Although earlier, the respondent, somehow, was not appearing before the trial Court, however, later on, he got an order of anticipatory bail and then appeared before the trial Court; to face further proceedings in accordance with law. However, while taking the evidence of the complainant, undisputedly, no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the respondent. After the notice was served upon the respondent, he moved an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act; praying for permission to cross-examine the complainant. That application was allowed by the trial Court. However, the complainant/ petitioner felt aggrieved of the said order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali. However, the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner; as being not maintainable. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant.

(3.) While relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in 2016 (2) RCR (Criminal) 684 - Uppal Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashwani Kumar, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order of the trial Court permitting or denying examination of witness is not an interlocutory order. Accordingly, in that case, this Court had relegated the complainant, whose application under Section 311 Cr.P.C had been declined, to the remedy of revision. It is further submitted that in the present case, the order passed by the trial Court, dealing with the application under Section 145 of NI Act is an intermediatory order; and not the interlocutory order. The revision against all the intermediatory order is not barred by Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner should have been entertained by the revisional Court; and the same should have been decided on merits. Hence, the order passed by the revisional Court is perverse.