The court clarified the nature of an intermediate order and emphasized the binding nature of legal propositions established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Applicants have filed this application with following prayers:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned charge-sheet and summoning order dated 16-2-2022, passed by Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri summoning the applicants to face trial vide Special Sessions Trial No. 93/2022, Crime No. 314/2020, U/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) n] /k of the Act, Police Station-Neemgaon, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2 to this application.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in the court of Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Special Sessions Trial No. 93/2022, Crime No. 314/2020, U/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) n] /k of the Act, Police Station-Neemgaon, District-Lakhimpur Kheri in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet and summoning order, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2 to this application.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction commanding the concerned court below to decide the bail application of the applicants providing them the benefit of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2021 (4) Crimes 139 (S.C.)."

3. In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations in para nos. 21, 22 and 23 :

"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.

22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said :

It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."

23. We may note that in different cases, different expr