An order dismissing an application for additional evidence is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 04.10.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una. It has been asserted that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N I Act). The petitioner filed anapplication under Section 94 read with Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for tendering in evidence a certified copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 342 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned counsel for the respondent had cross-examined the petitioner about his complaint. The document is relevant and necessary to decide the dispute. The complaint mentions that the respondent and her associates had obtained the cheque forcibly. The petitioner wanted to tender the certified copy of the complaint, which is per se admissible, and no witness was required to be summoned to prove the complaint. No prejudice would be caused to the other side. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is arbitrary, irrational and mechanical. The proof of complaint is necessary to establish that the respondent had obtained the cheque in question forcibly. Therefore, it was prayed that the record of the learned Trial Court be called and the petitioner be permitted to bring the complaint on record.

2. I have heard Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The document is highly relevant to prove the plea taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has a right to rebut the presumption of consideration attached to the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No prejudice shall be caused to the other side. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. The accused filed the revision against an order dismissing an application for leading additional evidence. It was held by this Court in Vishwa Narayan Goswami Vs. Ram Rattan Sharma, Latest HLJ 2009 (1) 552, that an order dismissing an application for leading additional evidence is an interlocutory order, which is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. It was observed:-

“7. The first question staring at the face is whether the order passed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Magistrate is an "interlocutory order" and not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. My answer to it is in affirmative. The order passed by the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an "interlocutory order" and revision against it is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In fact the word "interlocutory order" has not been defined in the Code. However, in Amar Nath's Case 1978 SCC (Cri) 10, the Supreme Court held that the word "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in a broad or artistic sense and it merely denotes orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights of the parties but any order which substantially affects the right of the parties can not be said to be an "interlocutory order".

9. In Madhu Limaye's Case 1980 SCC (Cri) 695, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which when accepted will conclude the particular proceeding, cannot be held to be an "interlocutory or