MOHD. ASLAM MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed against the order dated 31st Oct. 2008. In terms of the said order petitioner who is accused No.8 before trial court has been ordered to be charged for having allegedly committed offences u/s 5(2) of P.C Act read with 120-B, 471,467 and 420 RPC. When this petition came up before the court Id counsel was requested to satisfy the court about maintainability of the petition. Ld counsel has referred to and relied upon judgment(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, 1999 AIR(SC) 1028 as also judgment of the Jharkand High Court in case titled Umdanand Mishra v. state, 2002 CrLJ 2851. Ld counsel submitted that this revision petition is competent and maintainable against the order of framing charge. Ld counsel while relying upon the judgment in Umdanand Mishra's case in which the Jharkand High Court has held that order of framing charge, or refusing to frame charge, is not interlocutory order and thus bar v/s 397(2) Cr.P.C (Central Act) is not attracted, submitted that this petition is maintainable. In Rajdendra Sitaram Pande case in a complaint, process was issued and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such an order is not purely interlocutory order and bar u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C, (Central Act.) therefore, is not attracted.

(2.) It is on the basis of these judgments Id counsel submitted that this revision petition is competent against the order of framing charge.

(3.) Section 435 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended and sub section (4-a) has been inserted by Act of XXXII1989. Section (4-a) is reproduced as under:-