Mohan Lal Pradhan vs Bheem Kumar Sahu
2021 Latest Caselaw 624 Chatt

                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                            Order Sheet

                              Proceedings through Video Conferencing

                                 Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2021

                    Mohan Lal Pradhan Versus Bheem Kumar Sahu & others.



25/06/2021

Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, counsel for the Petitioner.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner/accused has filed instant revision petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pithora, District Mahasamund in Complaint (Criminal) Case No..... (unregistered) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that in the aforesaid complaint case, learned trial Magistrate firstly take congnizance under chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and investigation report under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C. was sought. After receiving report, vide impugned order, learned trial Magistrate ordered concerned police station to register FIR (Crime) and file final report / closure report. He would also submit that once the cognizance is taken under Chapter XV, learned trial Magistrate has no right to pass order to act under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. exercising power under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the order passed by learned trial Magistrate, First Class is illegal and can be challenged by filing revision petition, therefore, the objection raised by Registry of this Court is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Rakhi Patel v. State of C.G. & others1 in support of his submission.

1 2013 (3) C.G.L.J. 638 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Registry of this Court has raised an objection that against the impugned order dated 24.12.2016, this revision petition is not maintainable instead, the applicant is required to file Cr.M.P. under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which is an interlocutory order and as per Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C., power of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.

Thus, I am of the view that objection raised by the Registry of this Court is just and proper and the Revision petition against the impugned order is not maintainable.

In the matter of Smt. Rakhi Patel (Supra) cited by counsel for the applicant, the petition filed was in the form of Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not as revision petition, therefore, in view of this technical objection raised by Registry of this Court, aforestated case law is not helpful to the applicant.

In view of above, one week's time is granted to remove the defaults as pointed out by the Registry.

List this case thereafter.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge

D/-