Gajendar Singh Maan vs State Of J&K

Rajnesh Oswal, J

The present petition has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar (2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar) in file No. 56 initiated pursuant to FIR No. 06/2015 of Police Station, Kothibagh, Srinagar for commission of offences under sections 420, 471 and 188 RPC and order dated 09.02.2016, whereby the petitioner has been charge sheeted for commission of offences under sections 420 and 471 RPC. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar by virtue of which the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of framing of charges was dismissed.

A perusal of the order dated 09.10.2018 reveals that Revision petition against the order of framing of charges under sections 420 and 471 RPC, dated 09.02.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, was dismissed solely on the ground that the order of framing of charges is interlocutory in nature and the revision petition is not maintainable.

Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of framing of charges is not interlocutory, as such, the revision was maintainable.

Ms. Saba Gulzar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial court has validly framed the charges against the petitioner and the order of framing of charges cannot be assailed in revision being interlocutory in nature.

Heard and considered the rival contentions of the parties.

The only question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the order of framing of charges in an interlocutory in nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the issue in case titled "Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI", reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 and the relevant para is reproduced as under:

Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time-limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to the PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on the above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/Revisional Courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of the above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the order of framing of charges is neither purely an interlocutory order nor final order. Revision petition, as such, is maintainable against the said order.

For all what has been discussed above, order dated 09.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who shall decide the revision petition afresh in accordance with law.

Disposed of along with connected applications.