Order rejecting Section 311 CrPC application to examine hearsay witness, not essential for just decision, is interlocutory and revision-barred under Section 397(2); no inherent power interference absent strong reasons or evidence disclosure.

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

I.A. No.2612 of 2026

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.

Cr.M.P. No.2779 of 2025

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has dismissed the said Criminal Revision which was filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.3552 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.2290 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi rejected the prayer of the prosecution to examine the son of the informant namely Krishna Kumar Sharma on the ground that he is not the eye-witness to the occurrence nor is he the witness cited in the charge-sheet.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the prosecution filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi mentioning therein that though Krishna Kumar Sharma is not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet but his examination is necessary in the interest of justice, hence, the prayer was made for his examination as a witness. The learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi considered that the offences involved in the trial was punishable under Section 341, 323, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence of the five witnesses already examined by the prosecution, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not the eye-witness to the occurrence but he is a hearsay witness; as the informant after coming to his home, narrated about the occurrence to Krishna Kumar Sharma. Hence, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not a material witness. So, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi did not allow the prayer and rejected the same.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sethuraman vs. Raja Manickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the order passed by the learned trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and such revision against said order is barred under of Cr.P.C. Similar, is the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 69 and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi went on to hold that the Criminal Revision is not maintainable and dismissed the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 wherein it was held that denying the right to recall a witness for cross-examination merely because the trial is at its end causes prejudice to the accus