Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2185
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.
Ghan Shyam Vaish - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P and Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. - 207 of 2014
Decided On : 12-05-2014
For the Petitioner:- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui.
For the Respondents:- Govt. Advocate.
An order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is considered an interlocutory order and is not maintainable for revision.
Headnote:
Revisionist - Criminal Procedure Code - Order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a criminal revision against an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and therefore not maintainable for revision.
Issues: The issue was whether the order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was maintainable for revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the cases of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam and Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. to establish that the order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed as the impugned order was deemed to be an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard Sri Abdul Rafe Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sharad Dixit learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
3. Learned AGA submitted that impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable.
4. In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009(65) ACC, 607 Supreme Court and in the case of Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. 2011(75)ACC,388 Allahabad. It has been held that order of summoning or refusing to summon witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it does decide any substantive right of litigating parties. Hence, no revision lies against such orders.
5. In view of this, the impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
