Case Note & Summary
The case involved a Special Leave Petition filed by a Sessions Judge against remarks made by the High Court in a prior judgment. The High Court had allowed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge regarding the summoning of accused in a criminal matter. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on 5.4.2004 and issued summons for the accused to appear on 21.5.2004. The accused failed to appear, leading to a series of adjournments, and ultimately, an order was passed on 31.7.2004 recording their absence. The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on the grounds that the order was interlocutory, thus barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, however, held that the order summoning the accused was not interlocutory, allowing the revision to be heard on merits. The Sessions Judge, aggrieved by the High Court's remarks, filed the Special Leave Petition, arguing that the order was indeed interlocutory. The Supreme Court refrained from making a definitive ruling on the nature of the order but directed the petitioner to seek expungement of the remarks from the High Court, ensuring that any application filed would be decided without influence from the current order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interlocutory Orders - Definition and Applicability - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 397(2) - The court examined whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the absence of accused was interlocutory, impacting the revision petition's maintainability. The High Court's ruling that summoning an accused is not interlocutory was upheld, allowing the revision to proceed on merits. Held that the petitioner may seek expungement of remarks made against him (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 31.7.2004 was an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed the petitioner to file an application for expungement of the remarks made by the High Court, which the High Court would decide in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Interlocutory orders
- Cognizance of offences
- Revision petitions
- High Court powers
- Expungement of remarks
