1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 31817-M of 2009. Date of Decision: 12.11.2009 *** Harnek Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Nachhattar Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is though for the quashing of criminal complaint No. 31 dated 3.9.2004, preferred by respondent and summoning order dated 12.9.2008 passed therein by virtue of which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 195, 196, 211, 468, 474, 34 IPC, but the counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, states that he is aggrieved with order passed by revisional court dated 21.4.2009 whereby their revision against the summoning order has been dismissed not on merits but relying upon the case of Adalat Parsad Vs. Roopal Jindal & Anr. 2004(4) RCR (Crl.) page 1, by observing that the only remedy available with the petitioner is under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Heard. The decisions in Adalat Parsad's case (supra) had been rendered in different context when the accused after the summoning order moved the Court concerned for recalling of the summoning order. The terms “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. has been used in restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision. 2 The Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence does not found it a case of summoning, then respondent-accused would not have faced the trial at all, but if the Magistrate choses to summon the accused then in that case the accused would have face the trial and as such decides a serious question as to the right of the accused to be put on trial and to my mind could not have held to be an interlocutory order. The interlocutory order has been defined in the case of Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, 1977 SCC (Crl.) 2185, wherein it was held that the orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction. Amar Nath's case (supra) and the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, 1980 SCC (Crl.) 695 have been followed in the case of Rajendra Kumar sitaram Pande Vs. Uttam, 1999(1) RCR (Crl.) 800, wherein it has been concluded that the order issuing summons to the accused must be held to be intermediate or quasi final and, therefore, the revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be exercised against the same. Thus, the impugned order is totally misconstrued and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional court below with a direction to admit the revision of the petitioners and decides the same on merits. The instant petition has been disposed of without hearing the opposite party, since no fruitful purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent-complainant who has to incur unnecessary expenses to contest the petition. However, liberty is given to respondent that in case he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may file an application for recalling of the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 12,2009 Jiten