Ranjeet Singh vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

B.R. Arora, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 4, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by Nawla Ram and others and set aside the order dated October 15, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli.

Ranjeet Singh Jain, on June 18, 1987, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Dabok against Nawla Ram and Udai Lal u/s 394 IPC. The police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, against accused Nawla Ram under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and submitted the Final Report qua accused Udai Lal. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated October 15, 1987, did not accept the Final Report submitted by the police and took congnizance against both the accused Udai lal and Nawla Ram under Sections 323, 324 and 394 IPC and issued Warrants of Arrest. Dissatisfied with the order dated October, 15, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, the accused preferred a revision petition before the learned Sesions Judge, Udaipur, who, by his order dated December 4, 1989, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated October 15, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the accused. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the non petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

The order, taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate is an interlocutory order and no revision petition against an interlocutory order is maintainable in view of the statutory bar provided u/s 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal inquiry trial or other proceedings. When the order taking cognizance is an interlocutory order, no revision was maintainable and therefore, the order dated December 4, 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Consequently, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated December 4, 1989, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, is set aside.