JUDGMENT :

1- ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph us ;g ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] uksgj] ftyk guqekuxढ+ ds vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2022 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gSA
2- la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gSa fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa QeZ uksjax jk; c`tyky cuke ';ksdr vyh ds vuoku ls /kkjk 138 ,u-vkbZ- ,DV dk ekeyk yafcr gSA ftlesa cgl vafre ds LVst ij izR;FkhZ }kjk izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- izLrqr dj QeZ dk jftLVªs'ku izek.k&i= lk{; esa vkdj fjdkWMZ ij ykus dh vuqefr gsrq fuosnu djus ij izkFkZuk&i= vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2022 }kjk 10]000@& :i;s dh dksLV ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
3- cgl lquh xbZA
4- fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk esjk /;ku bl U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar

Pramendra Kumar Jaluthariya Vs. Sumerchand Jaluthariya, 2019 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 391 dh vksj vkdf"kZr djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izdj.k cgl vafre dh LVst ij fnukad 07-02-2020 dks fu;r Fkk] ftl ij vafre cgl lquh xbZ vkSj iqu% fnukad 04-03-2022 dks cgl lquh xbZ] mlds i'pkr vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks Lo;a dh lk{; ds 42 ekg ckn Lacuna fulfill djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA tks izkFkZuk&i= nsjhuk is'k djus ls izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tcfd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj dj fof/kd Hkwy dh xbZ gSA
5- izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gS] dsoy ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr FksA
6- eSaus fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar o i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA esjk fu"d"kZ bl izdkj ls gS fd %&
7- ;g vk{ksfir vkns'k izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153 ds ekeys esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfjnr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 91 lhvkj-ih-lh- o /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij tks vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS] og Interlocutory Nature dk gksrk gS] ftlds fo:) /kkjk 397¼2½ lhvkj-ih-lh- ds eqrkfcd fuxjkuh ugha dh tk ldrhA
8- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds eqrkfcd /kkjk 311 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fn;k x;k vkns'k Interlocutory vkns'k gksus dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;s tkus dh lwjr esa vc bl iz'u ij ;g fopkj fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k ,sls vkns'k dks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS vkSj ;fn nh tk ldrh gS rks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh ;kfpdk fdl voLFkk esa U;k;ky; fopkj dj vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre }kjk Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds Amar Nath And others Vs. state of Haryana And others AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 ds vk/kkj ij iSjk la[;k 29 o 30 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS%&

29. This leads us to another facet of the submission made by the learned counsel that even the avenue of proceeding under Section 482 CrPC is barred as far as the appellants are concerned. As held in Amar Nath[(1977) 4 SCC 137] and with which conclusion we agree, if an interlocutory order is not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) CrPC that cannot be circumvented by resort to Section 482 CrPC. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this proposition.

30. What then is the utility of Section 482 CrPC? This was considered and explained in Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551] which noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) CrPC and at the same time the expansive text of Section 482 CrPC and posed the question: In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? This Court then proceeded to answer the question in the following manner:

“10. ... In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inheren