AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeals as against the common order dated 10.01.2013 in
WP. SR. Nos. 134562 and 134559 of 2012. The Learned Single Judge while passing the order in WP. SR. Nos. 134562 and 134559 of 2012,
dated 10.1.2013, has inter alia observed that ""the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable as the petitioner''s prayer to quash the orders
dated 19.03.2012 were already challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl. R.C. No. 369 of 2012 before this Court and this Court by order dated
09.10.2012 dismissed Crl. R.C. by stating several reasons."" and resultantly dismissed the writ petitions by sustaining the objections raised by the
Registry and also finding that the writ petitions filed by the Appellant/Petitioner are not maintainable.
Assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.01.2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP. SR. Nos. 134562 and 134559 of 2012,
the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge passed the order dated 10.01.2013 dismissing the writ
petitions as not maintainable is not correct in law.
Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urged before this Court that the Revision Petitions filed earlier have been
dismissed on the ground of maintainability and, if the Revisions are not maintainable u/s 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short
Cr.P.C.""), then the petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, prayed for allowing the writ appeals.
At this stage, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in V.C.
Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., o the effect that the impugned order dated 19.3.2012 passed earlier, which is involved in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 &
376 of 2012, is only an ''intermediate'' order and, based on the said observation of the Supreme Court, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel
for the Appellant/Respondent that as against the intermediate order, the writ petitions are maintainable before the Learned Single Judge.
According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, he has filed Crl. M.P. No. 136 of 2007 u/s 233 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
and Crl. M.P. No. 137 of 2007 u/s 233 read with 91 Cr.P.C., and, the trial court has dismissed the said petitions. According to him, as the rights
of the accused, viz., the Appellant/Petitioner are affected, the Revisions are perfectly maintainable. He also takes a stand that notwithstanding the
fact that in the earlier round the Revision Petitions have been dismissed by this Court, yet in order to have a remedy, the Appellant/Petitioner has
filed the writ petitions before this Court to call for the records in Crl. M.P. Nos. 136 & 137 of 2007 in S.C. No. 77 of 1992, on the file of the
learned Ist Addl. Subordinate & Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and to quash the order dated 19.03.2012.
The Registry in regard to the maintainability of W.P. SR. Nos. 134559 & 134562 of 2012, has returned the case papers to the Learned
Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner for the following clarifications:-
It may be stated how these writ petitions are maintainable under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, since the alternative remedy is available
before the appropriate forum.
Cause title needs revision regarding R-2 in both petitions.
Stay Prayer needs revision in both petitions.
2nd Petitioner arrayed as party Respondent may be clarified.
To the clarifications sought for by the Registry as stated supra, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner made the following
endorsement in WP. SR. No. 134562 of 2012:-
The writ petition is maintainable, since the petition filed for examination of prosecution witness and production of documents is denied by the trial
court. It is denial of natural justice. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Hence
the writ is maintainable
In WP. SR. No. 134559 of 2012, he has made the following endorsement:-
The writ petition is maintainable under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, since the petition filed for cross examination of prosecution witness is
denied. It is denial of natural justice. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
In spite of the endorsement made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, the Registry has entertained a doubt in regard to
maintainability of the writ petitions and accordingly the matter has been posted before the Learned Single Judge for maintainability.
The Learned Single Judge has dismissed WP. SR. No. 134559 & 134562 of 2012 holding that ""as the petitioner has availed the remedy by
filing revision and invited an order from this court, the writ petitions filed challenging the very same order is not maintainable. Therefore, the
objection raised by the Registry is sustained.
The term ""interlocutory order"" is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. However, in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
Section 397(2) prohibits any exercise of powers of revision in interlocutory orders. Indeed, Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. keeps such orders outside the
purview of Revision so that enquiry may proceed without delay.
It is to be borne in mind that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, has clearly held that the
orders passed by the trial court on application filed under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C., are interlocutory in nature and revision of such orders by
the High Court is barred u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. Further more, in the decision reported in K.K. Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, ,
it is clearly held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as under:-
That apart, the view of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court that no revision was maintainable on account of the bar contained in
Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as
for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana,
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is
whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections
would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the
appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order
was revisable.
(Emphasis added)
The decision in V.C. Shukla''s case, which was strongly relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, is explained away in the
aforesaid decision as the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage and the feasible test is whether by upholding the
objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings.
Apart from the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to point out that in Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, the
Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the orders passed in the interlocutory application is interim or temporary in nature. Interlocutory
order or interim order is only transitory in nature and it will not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned.
We also aptly point out that the decision rendered in Sanjay and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court on the same line, which is to the effect that an order made u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses is an interlocutory order. Even
summoning the additional witnesses is also an interlocutory order in our considered view and, therefore, the Revision is not per se maintainable.
That apart, in the decision reported in Akilandammal Vs. S. Balasubramania Iyer, , In Re: Chinnappa and Another, and R.H. Bhutani Vs. Miss
Man J. Desai and Others, it has been clearly held that ''as against an interlocutory order, no revision is maintainable''.
It is to be noted that in the decision in the decision Pannalal Lahoti Vs. State of Hyderabad, at P.130 (under the old Criminal Procedure Code,
1898), it is held thus:-
193.... Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. authorise interference by the High Court even in a pending criminal case on the ground of illegality of
procedure or harassment of the accused by an unjustified application of illegal procedure, but the power in that behalf is exercised sparingly and in
cases of exceptional character.
Also, we point out that in the decision B.R.V. Satyanarayana Vs. The State, , it is held as follows:-
6.... Even a summary dismissal at the admission stage of a revision case after due hearing of the petitioner or his counsel is as much a dismissal after
full hearing and the order having been pronounced and signed by the Judge, the same cannot be altered or reviewed in view of the express
prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Further more, in the decision Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Emperor through Mohan Sarogi it is laid down that ""it is not the practice of the High Court to
take evidence in revision applications and therefore the parties should not in the anxiety to quash proceedings at the earliest possible stage, bring
revision applications before the High Court before the facts have been fully ascertained. Especially in cases involving the question of jurisdiction u/s
181 Cr.P.C., it is desirable that facts should be fully ascertained and the question of law involved should be dealt with in the regular way in the first
instance as part of the trial, before the remedy by way of revision is resorted to.
As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant/Petitioner along with one Mr. Duraisamy as Petitioners in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 & 376 of
2012 have approached this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed in Crl. M.P. Nos. 136 & 137 of 2003, dated 19.03.2012 by
the lower court and, this Court, ultimately, on 9.10.2012, in the aforesaid Revision Petitions has come to a resultant conclusion that the said order
passed by the trial court is only an interlocutory order and, therefore, the Criminal Revision Cases are not maintainable, both in law and on merits.
As a matter of fact, the common order passed in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 & 372 of 2012, dt. 9.10.2012 passed between the inter se parties has
become final, conclusive and it is binding on them. Moreover, the Appellant/Petitioner has not taken any further proceedings as an aggrieved
person before the higher forum in regard to the orders passed by this Court in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 & 376 of 2012, dt. 9.10.2012. As such, the
appellant is estopped in questioning the order passed in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 & 372 of 2012, dt. 9.10.2012 through writ petitions. After exhausting
the remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Appellant/Petitioner is now making an otiose endeavour to indulge in fishing
expedition of invoking writ jurisdiction, challenging the orders dated 19.3.2012 made in Crl. M.P. Nos. 136 & 137 of 2007 in S.C. No. 77 of
1992 in the writ petitions. The Learned Single Judge after going through the entire gamut of the matter and also taking note of the objections raised
by the Registry with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions in WP. SR. Nos. 134559 and 134562 of 2012, has come to a resultant
conclusion that the writ petitions in WP. SR. Nos. 134559 and 134562 of 2012 are not maintainable and resultantly sustained the objections
raised by the Registry of this Court.
In the upshot of detailed discussions as mentioned supra, we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the Learned Single
Judge in dismissing the writ petitions in WP. SR. Nos. 134559 and 134562 of 2012 on 10.01.2013 (of course for the reasons assigned in these
writ appeals). Consequently, the writ appeals also fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.