AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Deb, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the Petitioners.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Cr. Revision No. 48 of 1995 holding that he has no power as the order impugned was an interlocutory one.
Opposite party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 224 of 1992 bringing various allegations including that of u/s 464 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. It was the case that Petitioner No. 1 had illegally gifted the lands in favour of Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 while the lands belonged to the mother of the complainant who happened to be another son of Petitioner No. 2. A civil suit was already pending on the same nature of allegation.
A petition was filed before the trial court for discharge of the accused persons and after hearing both the parties the said petition was rejected and order was passed to frame charge. Against that order a revision was preferred before the sessions judge being Cr. Rev. No. 48 of 1995 and the same has been rejected. Hence this petition.
On the face of the revisional order it appears that the learned sessions judge has committed error of law. The order framing charge or discharge is definitely a revisable one and time, and again the apex court and this Court held that such order is always revisable one u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is not an interlocutory one. As the decision of framing charge infringes the right of the accused of not being dragged to trial, is an order, in finality. As such the learned sessions judge has committed error in dismissing the revision petition taking the view that the same is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad as contained in Annexure-3 is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to him to dispose of Cr. Revision No. 48 of 1995 afresh on merits.