Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6756 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                  NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CRR No.1121 of 2022

      • Xyz Nill

                                                          ---- Applicant

                                  Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Police Station Baradwar, District
     Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

  2. Tukesh Kumar Ratre S/o Jhangal Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o
     Village Sakreli (Baradwar) Police Station Baradwar, District
     Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Now District Sakti.

                                                       ---- Respondents

For Applicant : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, PL

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on board

11.11.2022

1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 22.09.2022

passed in Special Special Session Trial No.24/2022 by the

Special Judge, F.T.S.C. Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa, c.G.

whereby the application preferred under Section 311 of the

Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix and her mother for re-

examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that as the

applicant/victim has already entered into a compromise with the

accused and they have also moved an application for

compromise under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., the same has

been dismissed as the offence is not compoundable in nature.

Considering the change in the circumstances, the application

has moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for

re-examination of the prosecutrix and her mother, but by the

impugned order such application has been dismissed. He

would further submits that learned lower Court while dismissing

the application has committed error in law, therefore, prays to

allow this revision and set aside the impugned order.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State strongly

opposes this revision petition and submits that the revision is

not maintainable in view of the principle laid down in the matter

of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam1.

4. Having considered the submissions and particularly taking into

consideration the principle laid down in the matter of

Sethuraman (supra) it is held that application under Section

311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses, were the orders of

interlocutory nature, in which case, revision is not maintainable.

The relevant part reads as follows :-

"5.Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed

1 (2009) 5 SCC 153

cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside."

5. Hence, in view of the aforesaid principles, the revision petition

is not maintainable, therefore, it is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

yasmin