ORAL ORDER

1. Assailing the order dated 17.07.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 29596 of 2012 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, whereby, the application filed under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case pending before the trial Court, was dismissed, the present special criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

2. Facts relevant to dispose of the present petition may briefly stated as follow:

2.1 On a report lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in crime No. 15/2022 was registered with Surat DCB Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 05.05.2012. The crime was investigated and eventually, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet in the trial Court on 05.10.2012. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he is shown as A-9 in the above charge-sheet. The main allegation that was made against him is that he has cooperated with the main accused – Yogesh Jagdishbhai Patel to fabricate the document in question and to commit the other offences.

2.2 After the charge-sheet was filed and when the case stood posted for framing charges, the petitioner, who is A-9, filed the petition under Section 239 of the CrPC seeking discharge on the ground that no case is made out against him to frame any charge against him and to prosecute him for the said offences and that he has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the other accused in the crime. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

2.3 Aggrieved thereby, challenging the legality and validity of the said order dismissing his petition to discharge him, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed inter alia praying that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and that, by implicating him in the said criminal case, his fundamental rights are violated.

2.4 On the said ground and on the other grounds which are urged in the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dismissing his discharge petition.

3. Having regard to the order which is being challenged in this petition, this Court of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of on the ground of its maintainability.

3.1 As per settled law, an order passed in discharge petition, either allowing the same or dismissing the same, is construed to be an intermediate order / quasi final order, which is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) of the CrPC, to challenge the same by an aggrieved person. It is not an interlocutory order so as to attract the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the CrPC. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, has clearly held that, a revision against the order passed in a petition filed by the accused to discharge him in the criminal case would be competent and maintainable.

3.2 The above judgment is the authoritative pronouncement on legal position relating to maintainability of revision against an order passed in the discharge petition. The said orders are construed as intermediate orders or quasi final orders against which, revision under Section 397(1) of CrPC is maintainable and the same is not hit by the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the CrPC to maintain a revision against an interlocutory order.

3.3 Thus an order passed in the discharge petition is an intermediate order / quasi final order against which revision under Section 397(1) of the CrPC is maintainable. Therefore, when efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) of the CrPC, which is concurrent jur