Amrit Lal Pareek vs Mukesh Menaria

By way of this revision, the petitioner has approached this Court for challenging order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3,

Chittorgarh in revision preferred by the respondent complainant whereby the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 22.4.2019 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chittorgarh and allowed the application filed by the respondent complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The accused-petitioner herein is facing trial in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filed by the respondent complainant Mukesh Menaria. The

complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the witness/document. However, the trial court after detailed

appreciation of material available on record rejected the application. The said order passed by the trial court was reversed by the Revisional Court and

hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel Mr. Choudhary placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam reported in

(2009) 5 SCC-153 and urged that the order passed by the Revisional Court allowing the revision preferred by the complainant against the order dated

06.08.2019 passed by trial court u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable because the trial court’s order was interlocutory in nature as held by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. He thus urged that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent complainant has supported the impugned order of revisional court and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through material available on record.

Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced and after perusing Sethuraman’s judgment (supra) relied upon by Mr. Choudhary, it is

apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court, whilst considering this very controversy has clearly held that the orders passed by learned trial court

refusing to call the document and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory orders and are not revisable. It has positively

been held that revision against such order is barred by virtue of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

In view of the settled position of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court it is apparent that the Revisional Court i.e. learned Addl. Sessions

Judge No.3, Chittorgarh acted without jurisdiction while entertaining the revision preferred by the complainant against the order passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 rejecting the application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C.

As a consequence, the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittogarh is bad in the eye of law and cannot

be sustained.

Hence, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.

3, Chittorgarh in revision no. 37/2019 (69/2019) is hereby quashed and set aside.

Stay application is also decided.