RAFIQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER an order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable under the revisional jurisdiction is a vexed question of law which on several occasions had been the subject matter of adjudication and the present one is one such occasion. As answer to this question has far reaching consequence, I prefer to analyse the same in little detail.

(2.) AFORESAID question arises on a simple background, i.e. the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, inter alia, alleging commission of offence u/s. 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and after an inquiry u/s. 202. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, by order dated 12.12.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 798 (C) of 2004, being prima facie satisfied that offence u/s. 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, took cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, West Champaran who by order dated 2.4.2005, dismissed the revision application as not maintainable.

(3.) MR . Sanjeev Kumar No. 1, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the order taking cognizance and directing for issuance of process, is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court.