Uttarakhand High Court
26 March vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 26 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2217
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 478 of 2022
26 March, 2025
Yogesh Keshwani
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Devansh Kaushik, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of present C482 application, applicant
has put to challenge the order dated 23.03.2022, passed by
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal
Revision No.548 of 2019, Pramila Oberoi vs. State &
another.
3. Facts in brief are that respondent no.2 filed a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Insturuments Act, 1881 with the allegation of dishonour of
a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The said complaint was lodged as
Complaint No.147 of 2017 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, who in
turn, summoned the applicant. Since the complainant was
not present in the evidence stage, therefore, his evidence
was closed vide order dated 15.05.2019. Thereafter,
respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 15.05.2019, that too,
was rejected by a reasoned order on 23.08.2019. Against
this order, a revision was filed as Criminal Revision No.548
2025:UHC:2217
of 2019, before the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar
and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.03.2022.
Against the order dated 23.03.2022, applicant is before this
Court.
4. It is mainly argued by learned counsel for the
applicant that the order passed by learned Magistrate upon
the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an
interlocutory order against which revision is not
maintainable. He further submits that since the learned
Sessions Judge has committed a mistake of law and fact by
allowing the revision, therefore, the revisional order cannot
sustain and deserves to be quashed.
5. In order to buttress his argument, learned
counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam;
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153, wherein the said ratio has
been enunciated by the Apex Court that the order passed
for rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an
interlocutory order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2
submits that the learned Magistrate has wrongly rejected
the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 311
Cr.P.C. - overlooking the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
and the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision -
permitting her to file her evidence on payment of cost.
7. I have perused the above ruling cited by the
learned counsel for the applicant. I find force in the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. In the case of Sethuraman (supra), the Apex
Court has held as hereunder:-
"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
2025:UHC:2217
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."
8. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the law cited
hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present C482
application deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed.
Accordingly, the order dated order dated 23.03.2022,
passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No.548 of 2019, Pramila Oberoi vs. State
& another, is hereby quashed.
9. However, the liberty is given to the respondent
no.2/complainant to challenge the aforesaid order by filing
the appropriate application before the appropriate Forum.
10. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
26.03.2025
AK
