An order issuing process is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 204 - ISSUE OF PROCESS - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - NOT SUBJECT TO REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 - ORDER ISSUING PROCESS ON EXPARTE CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT AND MATERIAL UNDER SECTION 204 OF THE CR.P.C. BEING ONLY A STEP TOWARDS THE TRIAL, IS INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicants for lodging a false complaint against him. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, issued process against the non-applicants. The non-applicants filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Amravati, under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the order issuing process. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of issue of process and quashed the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order issuing process is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The court further held that the order of the Sessions Judge quashing the proceedings was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Issues: Whether the order issuing process is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. provides for the issuance of process by a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence. * An order issuing process is an interim order and not a judgment. * The accused person can always appear before the Magistrate in response to the summons and urge that there is neither sufficient ground nor sufficient material to proceed against him. * The Magistrate can consider the objection of the accused person and recall the order issuing the process if satisfied.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge quashing the proceedings. The court, however, made it clear that it will be open to the non-applicants to show to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, that there are no sufficient reasons or grounds to proceed against them in the complaint.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the complainant Uttam aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, on 19-1-1994 whereby he set aside the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1260 of 1990 (Uttam v. Rajendrakumar and others).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are that the applicant filed a complaint on 10-12-1990 under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 18 herein in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant as well as non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 are the Government servants serving in the Treasury Office at Amravati. The non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 herein on 1-2-1990 lodged a false complaint to the Treasury Officer, Amravati, containing false imputation that the complainant had come in the office on 31-1-1990 in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer, Additional Treasury Officer and Collector in filthy language. The said complaint was lodged by the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 herein against the present applicant - complainant with common intention to defame him knowing it to be false with clear intention to cause damage to the reputation and service of the applicant.

3. On the complaint filed by the applicant - complainant under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 herein, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, called a report under section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. from the Treasury Office, Amravati, and thereafter perused the verification. After going through the report of the Treasury Officer under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Amravati found that there was sufficient material prima facie to issue the process against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 herein under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 16-8-1991. The non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 filed the revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Amravati, under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the order issuing process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati. The Sessions Judge vide his order dated 19-1-1994 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of issue of process and quashed the proceedings. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the order dated 19-1-1994 impugned in the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 despite service.

4. Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. Provides as under :

"204(1). If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be -

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to apear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document