Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Vishwambhar Tarakh, the father of the deceased Sumitra, who was the informant in FIR No. I5 of 2017 registered at Ambad Police Station for the murder of his daughter. The informant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Additional Sessions Judge, seeking to summon additional accused persons (respondents No. 2 to 5) to face trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected that application. Aggrieved by this rejection, the informant preferred the present criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The respondents, including the State and the proposed additional accused, opposed the revision. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the informant had the locus standi to file a revision against the rejection of his Section 319 application. The court examined the scope of Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the nature of the order passed under Section 319. It held that the order rejecting an application under Section 319 is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not amenable to revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The court further observed that the informant, not being a party to the trial, has no right to challenge such an order by way of revision. The court noted that the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. does not extend to filing a revision against an order refusing to summon additional accused. The court dismissed the revision application, holding that the informant's remedy, if any, lies in approaching the trial court or the appellate court at the appropriate stage, but not by way of revision against an interlocutory order. The decision was based on the principles that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be used to interfere with interlocutory orders, and that the informant lacks the standing to challenge such orders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Locus Standi of Informant - Revision against rejection of Section 319 application - The informant, who is not a party to the trial, has no right to file a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against an order rejecting his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused. The court held that the informant's remedy, if any, is to approach the trial court or the appellate court at the appropriate stage, but not by way of revision against an interlocutory order. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Interlocutory Order - Revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. - An order rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and cannot be challenged in revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The court relied on the principle that the revisional court should not interfere with interlocutory orders to avoid delay in trial. (Para 4) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Right of Victim - Section 372 Cr.P.C. - The victim has a right to appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction for inadequate sentence, but no right to file revision against an order refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court distinguished between the rights of the victim under the Code and the limited scope of revision. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the informant (original complainant) has the right to file a criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against an order rejecting his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, holding that the informant has no right to file a revision against the rejection of his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the order being interlocutory is not revisable under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Law Points
- Right of informant to file revision against rejection of Section 319 Cr.P.C. application
- Locus standi of informant in criminal revision
- Scope of Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 362 Cr.P.C.
