VERY IMPORTANT POINT
An order framing the charge under Cr.P.C. 1973, is not an "interlocutory order" within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and, therefore, a criminal Revision lies against such an order under Section 397 read with Section 401 and under Section 482 of the Code.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Cede, 1973-Sections 240 and 397(2)-Criminal Revision against order framing charge - Whether competent? (Yes) - Order framing charge whether an interlocutory order? (No)-Objection raised by state as to maintainability of Revision dismissed:
        Held that an order framing charge under the Code is not an interlocutory order and therefore, a criminal revision lies against such an order. The objection raised on behalf of the State that the three revisions are not competent under section 397(2) of the Code cannot prevail. (Para 34)
       Case law discussed.
        (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 173 and 240-Legality and propriety of framing a charge against accused of offences punishable under sections 402 and 477A Indian Penal Code-Whether such charge automatically to be framed merely because the prosecution, by relying on the documents referred to in section 173 Criminal Procedure Code considers it proper to institute the case? (No)
        Held before a Magistrate frames a charge against an accused person, he must apply his mind to the facts of the case and to the materials produced before him and if upon such consideration, he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is to frame a charge against him. A charge is not automatically to be framed merely because the prosecution, by relying on the documents referred to in section 173 of the Code, considers it proper to institute the case. The Court is to be satisfied before framing a charge that there is a prima facie case against an accused person. As provided in section 240 of the Code, the parties are to be heard before charge is framed and therefore, a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard is to be given before any charge is framed. In the case before the learned Magistrate which are the subject-matters of these three criminal revisions, a bare reading of any of the impugned orders which arc on the same lines would indicate that no reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner of being heard on the question of framing of charges against him and the learned Magistrate had not even perused the materials in the form of documents on which reliance had been placed by the prosecution. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT

B. K. Behera, J. Accused of offences punishable under Sections 402 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and aggrieved by the orders dated May 5, 1982, passed in three cases against him by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, framing charges in respect of the two offences under Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner has come up to this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 and under Section 482 of the Code, in the three Revisions which, with the consent of the parties, have been heard together and will be governed by this common order, after determining the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that without proper application of mind and perusing the materials and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, the impugned orders have been passed mechanically without just and reasonable grounds. Mr. Nayak, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has raised the question of maintainability of the Revisions on the grounds that an order framing a charge against an accused person is an interlocutory order and, therefore, as provided in Section 397(2) of the Code, the Revisions are not competent and in view of this statutory bar, the inherent powers of this Court under. Section 482 of the Code are not to be exercised and in support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the principles laid down in Amar Nath y. State of Haryana and others1, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I.2, Jayaprakash v. State3, and N. B. Ramamoorthi, In Re4. Mr., Misra, appearing for the petitioner, has, however, placing reliance on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court including the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and others (supra); Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra5, V. C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. (supra) ; Lalit Mohan Mandal and others v. Benovendra Nath Chatterjee6, and Aditya Kumar Samal and others v. State7, submitted that the objections raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate cannot prevail as the framing of a charge is an intermediate, if not a final order and not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and even assuming that Section 397(2) is a bar to revise an order framing a charge, this Court, under Section 482 of the Code, can in fit and exceptional cases, exercise its powers and quash such orders passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate framing charges with a direction to hear the matters afresh with reference to the documents on which the prosecution seeks reliance.

2. Prior to the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no statutory bar for revisions against orders framing charges. Section 397(2) of the Code provides:

"The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding."

The legislative intention in enacting the provision was not to limit the powers of the High Court sitting in revision and as a matter of fact, all the powers of the old Code have been retained subject to the exception provided in section 397(2) of the Code and this new provision was introduced ill order to prevent vexatious litigation by making applications in revision against interlocutory orders passed by the Magistrate with a view to delaying the proceedings and harassing the adversaries. The term 'interlocutory' has not been defined in the Code and after the new Code came into force, this has become a subject of controversy. What is an interlocutory order and what is a final order have been interpreted in a number of cases of this Court and now the controversy has been set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (supra).

3. Before any authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court relating to this controversial question was made f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

VERY IMPORTANT POINTAn order framing the charge under Cr.P.C. 1973, is not an "interlocutory order" within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and, therefore, a criminal Revision lies against such an order under Section 397 read with Section 401 and under Section 482 of the Code.

Cases Referred (14)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
An order framing the charge under Cr.P.C. 1973, is not an "interlocutory order" within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and, therefore, a criminal Revision lies against such an order under Section 397 read with Section 401 and under Section 482 of the Code.