Orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and revisions against such orders are not maintainable, affirming the court's power to allow subsequent applications to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioner, namely, Situ Ramnath Shastri, with the following prayers:

a) Allow the present petition and quash/ set aside both the Impugned orders viz. order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition/Application No. 719/2019 filed in Complaint Case No. 19815/2016 and in Criminal Revision Petition/Application No. 720/2019 filed in Complaint Case No. 19822/2016 and order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Ld. MM (N.I. Act)-0 1, Patiala House Court at New Delhi in Complaint Case Nos. 19815/2016 and 19822/2016 as being illegal, null and void;

b) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ-03, Patiala House Court, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 719/2019 filed in Complaint Case No. 19815/2016 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 720/2019 filed in Complaint Case No. 19822/2016. The brief history of the case as mentioned in the above said order has been produced hereunder:

"2. The brief facts as per the revision petition are, that the respondent/ complainant had moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C for getting the MOU dated 14.06.2007 proved. However, the said application was rejected by ld. MM vide order dated 31.10.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed two revision petitions before the court of sessions which were rejected vide order dated 17.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondent did not agitate the matter further and went on seeking adjournment. After two years, the respondent again filed an application for leading evidence in connection with Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.06.2007, which was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2019. Hence, the present revision petition."

3. Based on the submissions made by the parties before Ld. ASJ, the consideration of the revision petitions' merits and the conclusions that followed are mentioned hereunder:

"10. At the very outset, I must hold that the present revision petition is against an order of the ld. trial court which was passed u/s 311 Cr.P.C and as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman's case (supra), such an order is an interlocutory order. That being the case, no revision petition against such an order lies. On this ground alone, the revision petition must fail.

11. However, ld. Counsel for revisionist has claimed that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order dated 31.10.2017 wherein, a similar prayer of the respondent had been declined. On this account, I find that the concept of review does not apply to an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. The object and purpose of section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the court to reach a just decision of the case. The words "just decision of the case" have a wide connotation and this power has been granted to the court so that justice can be dispensed without being bound by the technicalities of the law. It does not matter whether any witness has been examined, cross examined from the side who seeks to recall that witness or whether entire evidence has been closed or not. What is to be seen by the court is; whether, the recalling of such a witness and bringing of record is essential for just decision of the case? This in itself clearly shows that the earlier order passed on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C cannot operate as resjudicata.