[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punjab National Bank vs Abhishek Construction on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23651
1 MCRC-7793-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7793 of 2026
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Versus
ABHISHEK CONSTRUCTION
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
As per the report of India Post, notice upon the respondent was delivered on
20.03.2026 in MCrC No.7794/2026 (Punjab National Bank Vs. Abhishek
Construction).
Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Revision
No.51/2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Betul arising out of the order
dated 04.11.2025 passed in SC-NIA No.405/2019 pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Betul, against the petitioner-Bank, whereby learned Trial
Court had allowed the application under Section 91 of CrPC filed by the
petitioner-Bank and directed the production of certain documents, the said order
was challenged before the Court of Sessions. By the impugned order dated
04.02.2026 passed in CRR No.51/2025 (Abhishek Construction vs. Punjab
National Bank), learned Revisional Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court
and allowed the revision petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner-Bank.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23651
2 MCRC-7793-2026
complainant/petitioner had filed a complaint case against the non-
applicant(respondent) regarding dishonour of cheque. During the pendency of
Complaint Case No.405/2019, the petitioner moved an application seeking that
certain documents be taken on record and exhibited. The said application was
opposed by the non-applicant/respondent by filing a reply; however, the learned
Trial Court, vide order dated 04.11.2025, allowed the said application. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the respondent/non-applicant
preferred Criminal Revision No.51/2025 before the Court of Sessions at District
Betul (M.P.), which came to be allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
vide order dated 04.02.2026. It is submitted that learned Revisional Court erred in
entertaining the revision as the order passed by the Trial Court was interlocutory
in nature and a revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable in law.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and is liable to be
set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in CRR
No.51/2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, be set aside. In support
of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seturaman vs. Rajamanickam , 2009 (65) ACC 607
(SC), as well as the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Revision No.4971/2018 ( Jabbar Khan vs. Irshad Khan ), decided on
23.06.2023.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In Seturaman Vs. Rajamanickam; 2009 (65) ACC 607 (SC), it has been
held as under:-
"4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23651
3 MCRC-7793-2026
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 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. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."
5. Perusal of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Seturaman vs. Rajamanickam (supra ), makes it clear that a revision petition is not
maintainable against an interlocutory order. It is further evident that the order
passed by learned Trial Court under Section 91 of CrPC is interlocutory in nature.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the revision preferred against
such an interlocutory order was not maintainable. Therefore, the Revisional Court
ought not to have entertained the revision petition. Thus, the impugned order
dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Revisional Court in CRR No.51/2025 is contrary
to the settled principle of law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order
dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Revisional Court in CRR No.51/2025 is hereby
set aside.
7. With the aforesaid, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 stands allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
