Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharad Vasant Sawant, filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against respondent nos. 1 and 2. The trial court issued process against the respondents. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 preferred a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process. The Sessions Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of issuance of process. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the Sessions Court's order. The primary legal issue was whether the order of issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is an interlocutory order, and therefore not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC, or whether it is an intermediate or quasi-final order amenable to revision. The petitioner argued that the order of issuance of process is purely interlocutory and does not affect the rights and liabilities of parties, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Subramanian Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra. The respondents contended that the order is intermediate or quasi-final, relying on Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The High Court analyzed both decisions and distinguished them on facts. It held that the order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is a purely interlocutory order, as it does not finally determine any rights or liabilities of the accused. The court noted that the decision in Subramanian Sethuraman directly dealt with an order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC and held it to be interlocutory. The decision in Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande dealt with an order of issuance of process under Section 319 CrPC, which is a different provision. Therefore, the Sessions Court erred in entertaining the revision application. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the trial court's order of issuance of process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interlocutory Order - Revision - Maintainability - Order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is a purely interlocutory order and does not touch the rights and liabilities of parties - In view of Section 397(2) CrPC, a revision application against such an order is not maintainable - The Sessions Court erred in entertaining the revision - Held that the order of issuance of process is interlocutory and not revisable (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order of issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an interlocutory order and therefore not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC, or whether it is an intermediate or quasi-final order amenable to revision.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Sessions Court dated 1st April 2010, and restored the order of issuance of process passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is interlocutory
- not intermediate or quasi-final
- and therefore revision under Section 397 CrPC is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 60
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1720 of 2010
Mr. Anant Shinde for Petitioner, Mr. Bhushan Walimbe i/by Ms. Preeti Walimbe for respondent no. 1, Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State
Ashok Laxman Patel, V.S. Rajvarman, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court allowing a Criminal Revision Application against the order of issuance of process by the trial court.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Sessions Court's order allowing the revision and to restore the trial court's order of issuance of process.
Filing Reason
The Sessions Court allowed the revision application filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the order of issuance of process under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC, on the ground that the revision was maintainable despite Section 397(2) CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court issued process against respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Sessions Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of issuance of process.
Issues
Whether an order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is an interlocutory order and therefore not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order of issuance of process is a purely interlocutory order and does not touch the rights and liabilities of parties, hence revision is barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. Relied on Subramanian Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra.
Respondent argued that the order of issuance of process is an intermediate or quasi-final order and therefore revisable under Section 397 CrPC. Relied on Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam.
Ratio Decidendi
An order of issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is a purely interlocutory order as it does not finally determine any rights or liabilities of the accused. Therefore, a revision application against such an order is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC. The decision in Subramanian Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra is directly applicable, while Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam dealt with issuance of process under Section 319 CrPC, which is a different provision.
Judgment Excerpts
the order of issuance of process is a purely interlocutory order. It does not touch the rights and liabilities of parties.
the order of issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a purely interlocutory order and therefore, the revision application against the same is not maintainable in view of the specific bar under Section 397(2) of the Code.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The trial court issued process. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court, which was allowed on 1st April 2010, setting aside the order of issuance of process. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the Sessions Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 406, 420, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 397(2), 204
