Order on board

11.11.2022

1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in Special Special Session Trial No.24/2022 by the Special Judge, F.T.S.C. Sakti, District – Janjgir Champa, c.G. whereby the application preferred under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix and her mother for re-

examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that as the applicant/victim has already entered into a compromise with the accused and they have also moved an application for compromise under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., the same has been dismissed as the offence is not compoundable in nature. Considering the change in the circumstances, the application has moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the prosecutrix and her mother, but by the impugned order such application has been dismissed. He would further submits that learned lower Court while dismissing the application has committed error in law, therefore, prays to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State strongly opposes this revision petition and submits that the revision is not maintainable in view of the principle laid down in the matter of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam 1.

4. Having considered the submissions and particularly taking into consideration the principle laid down in the matter of Sethuraman (supra) it is held that application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, revision is not maintainable.

The relevant part reads as follows :-

“5.Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 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

1 (2009) 5 SCC 153

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 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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.”

5. Hence, in view of the aforesaid principles, the revision petition is not maintainable, therefore, it is dismissed in limine.