Darshan Singh vs Gurdev Singh and others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Heard.

Issue notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. C.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3-State.

The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record is that, in the wake of complaint lodged by the complainant-petitioner Darshan Singh, a criminal case was registered against the private respondents-accused, by means of FIR No. 139 dated 19.05.2008, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar.

During the pendency of the trial, an application (Annexure P-3) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the State, to seek permission and to lead evidence by way of summoning the Halqa Patwari, Patara, along with the record pertaining to mutation No. 4152 dated 13.12.1991 and the official concerned from the office of S.S.P., Jalandhar, with the record etc.

The respondents-accused refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply (Annexure P-5).

The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P-3) filed by the State, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-1).

Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the Sessions Judge (Revisional Court), by way of impugned order dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure P-6).

The complainant-petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-6), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

At the very outset, since the respondents-accused were not summoned and the revision petition was dismissed, being not maintainable by the Revisional Court, so, I hereby exempt the issuance of notices to the private respondents, at this stage, in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that, the Revisional Court had dismissed the revision petition only on the ground that since the order(Annexure P-1) is an interlocutory, so, the revision petition is not maintainable. Here to me, the Revisional Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this regard.

It is not a matter of dispute that the State has moved the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., to lead evidence in the manner indicated hereinabove, which was dismissed by the trial Court. It means, the trial Court has duly decided the rights and liabilities of the parties and negate the statutory right of the petitioner, to produce additional evidence, while deciding the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Such order cannot possibly be termed to be as interlocutory order, in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., . Therefore, to my mind, the Revisional Court has committed a jurisdictional error and the revision petition against the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was legally maintainable before it. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the revision petition before the Revisional Court, the instant petition is partly accepted. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (Revisional Court) for its disposal on merits, in accordance with law.