- In the case of Dadhibal Prasad Jaiswal vs Smt. Sunita Jaiswal the Madhya Pradesh HC has observed that an order rejecting an application under section 91 of CrPC is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
- Section 91 of CrPC provides for summons for the production of documents or other things which are in possession of any person.
- In the instant case, the argument of the applicant husband was that he was in a legal battle with his wife/respondent. The wife had filed a domestic violence case against him and had moved an application under section 91 of CrPC seeking directions from the Court to summon the copy of FIR from the police station to prove that the husband/applicant was involved in an extramarital affair.
- The Court of the Magistrate had rejected her application against which she had moved a revision application before a Court of Sessions, which was allowed. It was this order of the Sessions Court which was challenged in the present case.
- The Respondent wife contended that her application under section 91 of CrPC did not survive after the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the same was finally concluded and therefore could not be said to be interlocutory. Further it was argued that the Applicant had not raised the jurisdictional point before the Court of revision and therefore the respective Court did not inquire regarding the power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in light of section 397 CrPC.
- The Court observed that the test for an interlocutory order has been decided by the Apex Court in the cases of Amarnath vs State of Haryana (1977) SCC and Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra (1977) SCC wherein it was held that orders which result in termination of proceedings before the concerned Court are certainly not interlocutory in nature. In Amarnath's case, the Court had held that the order disposing of an application by which a valuable right of either party is affected, would be an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order, though the same would not result in the disposal of the case itself.
- Section 397(2) of CrPC provides that the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
- The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam (2009) SCC wherein it was held that the orders passed under section 91 or section 311 of CrPC are interlocutory in nature, which barrs the jurisdiction of criminal revision. Even though reasons have not been assigned as to why it considers that such orders are interlocutory, the finding is unambiguous and unequivocal.
- The Court also observed that as regards the question that the applicant had not raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the revision Court to entertain the revision petition, the Court held that a point of law can be raised at any stage. It was further observed that even if the question of jurisdiction was not brought up before the Revisional Court, the Judge ought to have known the law.
- Thus, while allowing the revision application, the Court held that the respondent, if she felt aggrieved by the order, should have resorted to another procedure which was provided by law. The order of the revisional Court was quashed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
