Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UT) 182
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
PREETI KESHWANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
C482 468 / 2022
Mr. Devansh Kaushik, Mr. Parikshit Saini, Mr. Vipul Painuly, Mr. Narendra Bali
Revisions against interlocutory orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., as established in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Interlocutory orders - The applicant challenged the order allowing a revision against the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling evidence, asserting that such orders are interlocutory and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. - The court found merit in the applicant's argument, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam, which established that the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed an interlocutory order. (Paras 5, 8)
(B) Revision - Scope of revision against interlocutory orders - The court reiterated that revisions against interlocutory orders are barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., and thus, the learned Sessions Judge's interference was incorrect. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 for dishonor of a cheque, leading to a series of applications and revisions regarding the rejection of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, reaffirming that the revision was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was interlocutory and thus not subject to revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, and revisions against such orders are barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
Result: The application is allowed, and the order dated 23.03.2022 is quashed.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 23.03.2022, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.549 of 2019, Piyush Oberoi vs. State & another.
3. Facts in brief are that respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insturuments Act, 1881 with the allegation of dishonour of a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The said complaint was lodged as Complaint No.146 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate/3rd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, who in turn, summoned the applicant. Since the complainant was not present in the evidence stage, therefore, his evidence was closed vide order dated 15.05.2019. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C . for recalling the order dated 15.05.2019, that too, was rejected by a reasoned order on 23.08.2019. Against this order, a revision was filed as Criminal Revision No.549 of 2019, before the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.03.2022. Against the order dated 23.03.2022, applicant is before this Court.
4. It is mainly argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the order passed by learned Magistrate upon the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C . was an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable. He further submits that since the learned Sessions Judge has committed a mistake of law and fact by allowing the revision, therefore, the revisional order cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
5. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 , wherein the said ratio has been enunciated by the Apex Court that the order passed for rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C . is an interlocutory order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the learned Magistrate has wrongly rejected the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C . – overlooking the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C ., and the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision –permitting him to file his evidence on payment of cost.
7. I have perused the above ruling cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. I find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. In the case of Sethuraman (supra), the Apex Court has held as hereunder:-
“5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent- accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e. one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set-aside. The appeals are allowed.”
8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the law cited hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present C482 application deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed.
