An order passed under Section 205(1) of the CrPC is interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The fact giving rise to the above referred to Criminal Misc. Cases Nos. 1018 and 1083 of 1988 may be briefly stated as follows:

One Madan Mohan Das (the sole opposite party in both the cases) on behalf of his married daughter, filed the complaint case I.C.C. No. 47 of 1988 against the six accused persons, namely, Kama Prasad Rout and his parents Muralidhar Rout and Makhi Rout (Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1018/88) and Chandrakanti Bar and her parents Fakira Charan Bal and Basanta Kumari Bal (Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1083/88) in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara. The complainant alleges that though his daughter is the legally married wife of accused Kama Prasad Rout, the latter entered into a bigamous marriage with Chandra Kanti Bal. The learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara after conducting an enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure has taken cognizance against all the six accused persons under Sections 494, 494/109 and 494/114, I.P.C. and summoned the accused persons to appear before him on 9-5-1988 in the said case. The above six accused persons did not appear on 9-5-1988, the date fixed for their appearance, but their counsel filed petitions u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensing with their personal attendance in Court praying for allowing them to be represented by their counsel. The learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 9-5-1988 dismissed the petitions filed u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the two sets of accused persons. Being aggrieved by that order the three accused persons, Kama, Murali and Makhi preferred Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1988 and accused Chandrakanti, Fakira and Basanta Kumari preferred Criminal Revision No. 91 of 1988 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack and the latter by a common order dated 14-12 1988 dismissed both the revisions. Being aggrieved by that order, the two sets of revision Petitioners preferred the above referred two Criminal Misc. Cases Nos. 1018 and 1083 of 1988 and so both are disposed of by this common order.

2. In both the Criminal Misc. Cases what is to be decided is the scope of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure and the legality of the order dated 9-5-1988 passed by the learned, S.D.J.M. rejecting the petitions filed by the Petitioners u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, both the Criminal Misc. Cases are disposed of by this common order.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that as an order passed u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure is not an interlocutory order, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, erred in law in dismissing the revisions solely on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, in view of the prohibition u/s 397(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence from the contentions of the parties, the point whether at all an order passed u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order, arises for consideration in the present Misc. Cases.

4. In Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another the Supreme Court has made the following observations which are of considerable assistance for understanding the true meaning of the expression "interlocutory order":

...In Webster's New World Dictionary 'interlocutory' has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appelaable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of