A revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable under section 397(2) Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Sharda Narain, the maker of the F. LR. dated 4. 4. 84, annexure I, for the offence punishable under sections 363/364, IP. C.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. Sant Kumar, accused-opposite party No. 2 had kidnapped Kumari Jayanti aged 16 years, the sister of Sharda Narain applicant After the accused surrendered in the court on 1. 5. 84, Km. Jayanti was produced in the court on 10. 5. 84 by Ramesh Chandra Gupta, father of the accused and was lodged in the Nan Niketan, Etawah. Later on 17. 5. 84, on the application of Km. J ayanti she was delivered to the custody of one Ram Bali, uncle of the accused on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/ undertaking to produce Km. Jayanti as and when required by the court. On that very date, i. e. 17. 5. 84, the Investigating Officer made an application before Judicial Magistrate I, Farukhabad fur a direction to Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti to enable the Investigating Officer to get her medically examined during the course of investigation. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 1. 6. 84, annexure 2, allowed the said application and directed Ram Bali to produce the girl in the court on 11/6/1984 so that her medical examination could be got done. Sant Kumar accused filled Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1984, Sant Kumar v. State of U. P. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the said order dated 1. 6. 84. The learned Sessions Judge Shri D. N. Shukla vide order dated 15/9/1984 annexure 3, allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 1/6/1984 with the result that Ram Bali was no longer required to produce Km. Jayanti in the court for medical examination.

( 3 ) SHARDA Narain, feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 15. 9. 84 has preferred this revision. The grounds taken in this revision are I-that the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 1. 6. 84 requiring Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti in the court to enable the 1. 0. to get her medically examined during the course of investigation was an interlocutory order and under section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. a revision against that order was not maintainable; (2) that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge amounted to interference with the investigation inasmuch as it had the effect of hampering the investigation.

( 4 ) THE above order of the learned Magistrate, in my view, was nothing but an interlocutory order inasmuch as the said order did not affect the rights of the parties or prejudiced anyone. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears, was also conscious of this fact yet he disposed of this legal point with the following observations: A photostat copy of the medical report of a lady dated 16/8/1984 by the Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad, is before me and the record of the lower Court shows that the original has been directed to be brought on record. It cannot be said that no revision lies as the order was interlocutory. If that submission is accepted the courts will be at liberty to direct medical examination times without number which would be nothing but impropriety and hence the order shall be set aside.

( 5 ) THE reasons advanced by the learned Sessions Judge not to treat the order in question as an interlocutory order are not justified. The above reasoning would not change the nature of the order in question. The criteria to find out as to whether an order is interlocutory or not has been spelt out by me above and that is the settled view. I am, therefore, of the view that the revision before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable and for this reason alone the order passed by him is to be set aside.

( 6 ) PARA 11 of the counter affidavit filed by Sant Kumar O. P. 2, indicates that when he had filed revision before the Sessions Judge then Km. Jayanti had moved an application in the district Hospital, Fatehgarh for her medical examination and it was in pursuance thereof that the Chief Medical Officer had prepared certificate re