Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mrs. Chetna Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8609) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8609]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1017/2024
Mrs. Chetna Ravi Kumar W/o Shri Ravi Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Sunaro Ka Vas, Dhora Dhal, Bhinmal, Rajasthan -
343029, Currently R/o Kamathipura 8Th Lane, Nagpada,
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400008
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. SHO, Police Station, Ramseen, Dist. Jalore.
3. SHO, Police Station, Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore.
4. Hemraj Soni S/o Tolaram Soni, R/o Sonaro Ka Vas, Dhora
Dhal, Bhinmal, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Taha Khan
Mr. Sadanand Bansode
Mr. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Chaudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
15/02/2024
The instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC
has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the search warrant
dated 20.01.2024 issued under Section 97 CrPC by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal through Senior
Inspector of Police, Police Station Ramseen.
2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the present miscellaneous
petition. It is submitted that an order under Section 97, CrPC is a
final order against which a revision lies before the competent
[2024:RJ-JD:8609] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1017/2024]
Court and hence, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is not
maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the submission
made by the learned Public Prosecutor and it is submitted that the
present miscellaneous petition is maintainable. It is submitted that
an order under Section 97, CrPC is an interlocutory order,
therefore, the said order can be challenged only by way of filing a
criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective parties.
5. In Rama Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa reported in
MANU/OR/0054/2013, Hon'ble Odisha High Court has held that
a proceeding under Section 97, CrPC is not by way of an interim
application filed in another proceeding, but is an independent
proceeding, which stands terminated by passing of an order in
that regard. Thus, an order under Section 97, CrPC cannot be
termed as an "interlocutory order". The relevant portion of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"9....The said decision has no application to the facts and
circumstances of the case inasmuch as the petitioners are neither
kidnappers of the child-Satyaprakash and their custody of the
child cannot be said to be wholly illegal and that the proceeding
under Section 97, Cr.P.C. is not by way of an interim application
filed in another proceeding, but an independent proceeding which
has stood terminated by passing of the impugned order. In the
circumstances, the impugned order cannot be termed as
interlocutory. The contention of the learned counsel for opposite
party No. 2 regarding maintainability of the revision therefore
fails."
(emphasis supplied)
[2024:RJ-JD:8609] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1017/2024]
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal
misc. petition is disposed of with a liberty to petitioner to prefer
revision before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction. If any
revision petition is filed by the petitioner, then the learned Court
shall decide the same on its merits including the question of
limitation, if any, raised.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
( MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
823-CPGl/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
