Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.685/2018 (Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.,)
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
Cr.R. No.685/2018
Mahesh & Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------
Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
--------------------------
ORDER
(21/02/2018) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 07/11/2017 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.290/2016, whereby application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of 'the Code' has been rejected.
02. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants have filed an application under Section 91 of 'the Code', before the trial Court, praying for producing the suicide note of the deceased along with a register, which was seized by the police. However, trial Court dismissed the application vide the aforesaid order, hence the present revision petition.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.685/2018 (Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.,)
03. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer submitting that this revision petition is not maintainable because it was filed against the order which is interlocutory in nature.
03. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
04. The Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153, with respect to Section 91 of 'the Code', has held that:
" Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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."
05. The above mentioned judgment clearly sums up the position relating to interlocutory orders with respect to Section 91 and 311 of 'the Code'. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.685/2018 (Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.,) revision petition filed against the interlocutory order passed by trial Court rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of 'the Code' is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.02.22 14:39:47 +05'30'