SHRUTI ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A single Bench referred the. case to the Division Bench and as such the case has been placed before us. Before the Single Bench on the basis of a decision in the case of Smt. Bachcha Devi alias Bachcha Bei Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 (1) PLJR 930, counsel for the petitioner argued that the order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and as such it is not revisable, On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party on the basis of decision in the case of Chandra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2002 (3) PLJR 206 argued that such an order is not interlocutory one and as such revision is maintainable. In view of the conflicting decisions the learned Single Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision whether taking cognizance and issuance of process after enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC is an interlocutory order or not.

(2.) The short facts, relevant for the purpose, are that a complaint was filed, enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was held, cognizance was taken against the accused persons for the offence under Section 420/34, I PC, processes were issued, the accused persons preferred revision against the order taking cognizance before the Sessions Judge, the revision was allowed and the order taking cognizance was set aside. The complainant has approached this Court under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Single Bench in view of the conflicting decisions as indicated above referred the case to the Division Bench.

(3.) Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power of revision. Sub-section (2) thereof says that power of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings i.e. no revision shall lie against the interlocutory order. The interlocutory order has not been defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the issue involved is no more res Integra. The interlocutory order has already been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1977 SC 2185. The Apex Court has considered the interlocutory order and has held that the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 397(2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397. The orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.