Case Note & Summary
These criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sought to quash the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Udupi, which had dismissed criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioners as not maintainable. The revision petitions had challenged the orders of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi, taking cognizance and directing issuance of process against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent bank had filed complaints under Section 2(d) and Section 200 CrPC alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioners. The Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaints and documents, formed a prima facie view that sufficient material existed and issued process. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 399 CrPC, which were dismissed on the ground that the order of issuance of process was an interlocutory order and hence barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The petitioners contended that the question of maintainability of revision against an order taking cognizance was no longer res integra and was concluded by the Supreme Court in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh. The respondent bank, relying on Subramaniam Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, argued that such orders were interlocutory and the only remedy was under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court formulated the sole point for consideration: whether an order issuing process under Section 204 CrPC is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Drawing on the authoritative pronouncement in Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana, which in turn followed Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, the High Court held that an order issuing process is not merely interlocutory and that a revision petition is maintainable. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Fast Track Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted with a direction to decide the revision petitions on their merits. The petitions were thus allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision Against Issuance of Process - Order Under Section 204 CrPC is Not Interlocutory - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 204, 397, 399 - The sole point considered was whether an order directing issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is revisable. The High Court, following the decisions in Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana and Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, held that such an order is not an interlocutory order and that a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 399 is maintainable. The orders of the Fast Track Court dismissing the revision petitions as not maintainable were set aside and the Court below was directed to decide the revision petitions on merit. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order passed directing issuance of process in exercise of power under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is amenable to the jurisdiction of revisional Court?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the impugned orders of the Fast Track Court and directing it to decide the revision petitions on merits, holding that an order under Section 204 CrPC is not interlocutory and revision is maintainable.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Order under Section 204 CrPC is not interlocutory
- Revision maintainable against issuance of process
- Section 397(2) CrPC does not bar revision
- Cognizance order affects rights of accused
