Jharkhand High Court
Nitai Krishna Pal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2007
------
Nitai Krishna Pal, son of late Balal Lal Pal, resident of Chakulia, P.O. and
P.S.Chakulia, District Singhbhum East .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Prameshwar Barik, son of Gobardhan Barik
3. Alok Nanda Bera, son of Bhim Bera
4. Bharat Jhunhunwala, son of Hemraj Jhunjhunwala
All residents of Chakulia, P.O. and P.S. Chakulia, District East
Singhbhum .... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party Nos.2-4: Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
------
04/17.03.2021 Heard Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party-State as well
as Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account
the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have
complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent
this matter has been heard.
Status report has been received whereby it has been informed that
time petition is being filed on each and every time by the petitioner in the
Court below to bring necessary order from this Court in view of pendency of
this Cr.M.P.
This Cr.M.P. has been filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2007
passed in Criminal Revision No.74 of 2001.
In the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam reported in
(2009) 5 SCC 153 it has been held that the revisional order is allowed to
be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the sake of brevity, para 5 of the
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by
the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the
application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and
as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under
Section 397(2) CrPC. 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 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 CrPC for production of
documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC
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.
It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.
In view of above facts considering the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this matter is of the year 2007 and proceedings are
under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in light
of time already lapsed, there is no need of passing any positive order.
Accordingly, instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
