Back
2020 Supreme(All) 944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Manoj Kumar Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1962 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amarnath Tripathi.
Point of law: there is no room left for discussion qua nature of rejection order passed in application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is held to be interlocutory order and assailing the said order in the revision petition is clearly barred under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 91, 164, 311 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 352, 727, 326, 427 – Intention To Kill – Instant Revision has been preferred by Manoj Kumar Patel (victim) challenging the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Varanasi, rejecting the application No. 79-Kha, , u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist(herein) in Sessions Trial (C.N.R. No. UPVR01-000691-2016) (State vs. Vansraaj Patel and Others) arising out of case crime, under Section 307, 352, 727, 326-A of I.P.C. Police Station-Cholapur, District-Varanasi. –
Finding of the court:
It is clear from the judgment of Girish Kumar Sunija (Supra), that those orders which have the effect of terminating the proceeding of the main case once for all, though passed at interlocutory stage, are alone can be construed as intermediate order or quasi-final order. – On this basis alone, one can reach the conclusion that particular order is interlocutory order or intermediate order or quasi-final order for the purpose of maintaining revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. – It is significant to note that it has been consistently held right from the case of Amarnaath (supra) in the year 1979 till Girish Kumar Sunija(supra) in the year 2017 that an order of summoning a witness is an interlocutory order which is not revisible. – Court is not in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist that every order passed, during the trial, touching the right and liability of the parties is an intermediate order and liable to be assailed under the revisional jurisdiction. – Order passed for summoning witness or for producing the documents are only an step in furtherance of the trial proceeding which does not terminate anything final against any person. – If the contention of counsel for the revisionist is accepted and every order passed during the trial of the case is construed as an intermediate order on the ground that it touches right or liability of the parties in relation to trial of the case, it would defeat the very purpose of bar as enshrined under sub-section 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and would dilute the legislative intend. – It can easily be concluded that decision of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. do not decide anything finally or results into the culminating the main proceeding of the case. – Order impunged cannot be construed as an order which is a matter of movement or as an intermediate or quasi final order as discussed in the case of Amarnaath (Supra) and Madhu Limay (Supra), so as to maintain the revision against the said order.
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Sri. Amarnath, learned counsel for the Revisionist, Sri. Yogendra Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, Sri. Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State on admission and perused the record on board.
2. Instant Revision has been preferred by Manoj Kumar Patel (victim) challenging the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Varanasi, rejecting the application No. 79-Kha, dated 21.10.2020, u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist(herein) in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2016 (C.N.R. No. UPVR01-000691-2016) (State vs. Vansraaj Patel and Others) arising out of case crime No. 22 of 2016, under Section 307, 352, 727, 326-A of I.P.C. Police Station-Cholapur, District-Varanasi.
3. Factual matrix of the case shows that the informant and his cousin (son of his mother’s sister) Manoj Kumar (revisionist herein) were working in the Madan Textile. On 07.01.2016, duo, after completion of their work, were going to the house of Manoj, situated in Benipur Khurd by their respective motorcycle. At about, 08:45 p.m. while they reached in the village Benikhurd near the house of Molaee, four persons namely Vansraaj Patel, Vijay Patel, Ramesh Patel and Mahendra, who were inimically with the Manoj, had stopped the motorcycle of Manoj and pored kerosene oil over him, with intention to kill and set him ablaze. Seeing the screams of Manoj, informant had raised alarm. While he had been chased by Vansraaj and Ramesh, he ran away after leaving his motorcycle. In the mean-time, co-villagers had gathered there and aforesaid four accused fled away from the scene. With the help of villagers fire of Manoj as well as his motorcycle was extinguished. During process of extinguishing, Prakash Patel and Golu Patel were also injured. With the help of the villagers Manoj was taken to the Kabirchaurra Hospital through ambulance from where he was referred to B.H.U. and due to paucity of place he has been admitted in Adarsh Hospital, Sundarpur.
4. In this backdrop, Chedi Patel (first informant) had lodged F.I.R. dated 07.01.2016 (Exhibit K-3), registered as Case Crime No. 22 of 2016, under Section 307, 352 and 427 I.P.C.
5. After investigation, Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet dated 31.01.2016. Vide order dated 29.03.2016, learned Trial Court, had framed charges against all the four accused persons, as mentioned in the F.I.R., under Section 307/34, 352 and 402 I.P.C. As the matter proceeded, at hearing stage Manoj Patel (victim), revisionist herein, has moved an application dated 21.10.2020 (Application No. 79 Kha), under Section 311 Cr.P.C. beseeching acceptance/admission of medico-legal report, prescriptions, discharge-sheet of the injured and for marking of exhibit on the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also for putting a question to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to written report (Ex.K-1).
6. Aforesaid application No. 79-Kha dated 21.10.2020, was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, which is under challenged in the instant revision.
7. After hearing the matter at length, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present revision in view of the express bar engrafted under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In brevity Cr.P.C.) to entertain a revision u/s 397(1) Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of trial of the case. He has submitted that impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court refusing the acceptance/ admission of required documents on record as mentioned in the Application No. 79 Kha, dated 21.10.2020, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and the instant revision petition, which has been preferred challenging the impugned order by which aforesaid applicati
