IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) of CrPC and the limitations on invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

2. In these two applications, the applicants have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quash the orders dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and issuing summons to them for their appearance and to set aside the said orders.

3. In total, there are 15 accused against whom cognizance of offence was taken by the impugned orders and summons were issued. All of them have filed these two applications seeking similar relief of quashing the said orders. Therefore, these two applications are heard together and they are being decided by this common order.

4. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. She has filed a complaint under Section 190 of CrPC before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad alleging that the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 114 IPC was committed by the applicants. The inquiry, as contemplated under Section 202 of CrPC, was conducted by the learned Magistrate. Eventually, as he found from the material available on record before him that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 114 IPC, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned orders, has taken cognizance of the offence against the applicants and ordered to issue summons to the applicants under Section 204(4) of CrPC.

5. Assailing the said impugned orders of taking cognizance of offence against the applicants and issuing summons to them, the present applications under Section 482 of CrPC are filed to quash the said orders and to set aside the same on various grounds that are urged in the applications.

6. Having regard to the nature of the orders that are being challenged in these two applications, this Court is of the considered view that these applications can be disposed of on the ground of their maintainability, without touching the merits of the case.

6.1 It is now well settled law that an order taking cognizance of a case instituted upon a complaint or an order refusing to take cognizance of the offence, are construed as intermediate orders or a quasi final orders, which is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) of CrPC. The said order is not an interlocutory order so as to attract the bar contained under clause (2) of Section 397 of CrPC. A revision against a final order against which no appeal lies and a revision against an intermediate order or a quasi final order against which no appeal lies, is clearly maintainable under Section 397(1) of CrPC. In fact, way back, in the year 1977 itself, the Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 137, has clearly and authoritatively, in no uncertain terms, held that, an order taking cognizance of an offence against the accused is to be construed as an intermediate order or a quasi final order against which, revision under Section 397(1) of CrPC is maintainable. It is clarified by the Apex Court in the said judgment that such an order is not an interlocutory order attracting the express bar engrafted under Sub-clause (2) of Section 397 of CrPC.

6.2 The said law has been consistently followed by various High Courts including this High Court. When the similar order of taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate is challenged before this Court, this Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Industries through Rajkumar Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LawSuit (Guj) 836, while relying on the aforesaid decision in Amar Nath’s case of the Apex Court and the subsequent judgment rendered by