TAJJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 27. 4. 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa in Cr. Revision No. 21/2006 vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31. 8. 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui in Cr. Case No. 402/2005 was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that non- petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and seven others in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) cum-A. C. J. M. , Bandikui for offences u/ss. 498a and 406 I. P. C. with the allegation that she was married to Kasim on 5. 12. 1999. After marriage, she was harassed for demand of dowry and ultimately she was turned out of the house. THE complainant- non-petitioner examined herself under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and her witnesses namely; Anwar and Jakir Khan u/s. 202 Cr. P. C. On the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 31. 8. 2005 for offence u/s. 498a I. P. C. THE petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition which was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 27. 4. 2006 as indicated above. Hence, this petition.

(3.) IN Bhaskar INdustries Ltd. vs. Bhiwati Denim & Apparels Ltd.- [2002 (1) Mh. L. J. 81] it has been laid down as to whether an order is interlocutory or not cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at an interlocutory stage. The safe test is that if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior Court in revision as against the order under challenge, is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would then the order is not an interlocutory order inspite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.