The court ruled that orders rejecting discharge applications are not purely interlocutory and thus maintainable for revision, reaffirming inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of legal process.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the trial Court rejecting his prayer for discharge and Sessions Court rejecting the Revision Petition filed by him on the ground of maintainability. He has sought for remand.

2. During the course of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner sought for remanding the case to the Sessions Court to decide the Criminal Revision Petition filed by him on merits.

3. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Sessions Court is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and liable to be set aside. It has erred in dismissing the petition as not maintainable without deciding the matter on merit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, rejection of application seeking discharge is not an interlocutory order and therefore is maintainable. When the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, the same was challenged before the Sessions Court, the Revision Petition is perfectly maintainable before the Sessions Court and it ought to have decided it on merit rather than dismissing the same as not maintainable. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the Sessions Court is not sustainable and hence the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. Petitioner/accused is the Proprietor of M/s Sai Steel Suppliers. A case came to be registered against him by the COD police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is alleged that from April to June 2011, accused purchased iron from six dealers, but failed to pay taxes in a sum of ₹67,91,477/- with regard to the turnover of ₹4,61,52,247/- in respect of the business done with M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd. and thereby cheated the Government. However, M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd filed O.S.No.5891/2013 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-30) Bengaluru. In the said suit, the trial Court gave a finding that plaintiff i.e, M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd has not committed any omission and the Proceedings dated 15.12.2012 and Notice dated 26.09.2012 issued by defendant are illegal and the endorsement dated 15.07.2013 issued by defendant is void. In the light of the same, accused is entitled for discharge and hence the application.

7. The trial Court rejected application filed by accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

8. Against the said order, accused approached the Session Court in Crl.R.P.No.159/2018. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said petition on the ground that it is arising out of an interlocutory order and as per Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C, the revision petition against a interlocutory order is not maintainable.

9. This issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in scores of judgments:

(i) Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey and others Vs.

Uttam (Rajendra Kumar)

(ii) Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (Madhu Limaye) ² (iii) V.C. Shukla Vs. State Through CBI (V.C.Shukla)

(iv) Amarnath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (Amarnath)

1 (1999) 3 SCC 134

2 (1977) 4 SCC 551

3

1980 SUPP SC 92 (1977) 4 SCC 137 (v) K.M. Mathew Vs. The State of Kerala (K.M.Mathew)

(vi) Honnaiah T.H Vs State of Karnataka and Ors (Honnaiah T.H).

10. In Amarnath, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term interlocutory order "…This being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance o