Jharkhand High Court
Chandarkant Gopalka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1570 of 2008
------
Chandarkant Gopalka, son of Sri Shyam Sunder Gopalka, resident of
Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Govind Narayan Tiwary
3. Gopal Narayan Tiwary
4. Murari Narayan Tiwary
5. Krishna Mohan Narayan Tiwari
All 2 to 5 are son of Late Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary, resident of Village
Boreya, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi
6. Smt. Saraswati Devi, wife of Awadh Bihari Ojha, resident of Village
Boreya, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi
7. Smt. Nirmala Tiwary, wife of Govind Narayan Tiwary, resident of Village
Boreya, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi
8. Meena Tiwary, wife of Gopal Narayan Tiwary, resident of Village
Boreya, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi
9. Abhay Kumar Singh, son of Surendra Prasad Singh, Kusum Vihar,
Morhabadi, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
------
09/17.03.2021 Heard Ms. Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the opposite party-State.
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
Criminal Revision No.16 of 2008 has been dismissed on 16.08.2008.
This Cr.M.P. has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2008
passed in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2008.
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 2008 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
