Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.05.2011 M/s Salig Ram Ram Parkash ....Petitioner Versus M/s Ram Gopal Ramesh Kumar ...Respondent Crl. Misc. No.M-33968 of 2010 M/s Neeraj Traders through its Prop. Amit Kapur son of Sh. Sham Sunder Kapur r/o 31-Rose Avenue, Opposite Income Tax Office, Amritsar. ....Petitioner Versus M/s Ram Gopal Ramesh Kumar through its Prop. Shri Ram Gopal son of Sh. Mohan Lal r/o 355- Basant Avenue, Amritsar. ....Respondent Crl. Misc. No.M-33969 of 2010 M/s Neeraj Traders ....Petitioner Versus M/s P.G. & Company ....Respondent Crl. Misc. No.M-33970 of 2010 M/s Neeraj Traders ....Petitioner Versus M/s P.G. & Company ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010 2 ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010, Crl. Misc. No.M-33968 of 2010, Crl. Misc. No.M-33969 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-33970 of 2010 as the impugned order in all the cases is same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar in complaint case No.2668 dated 20.10.2009 titled as `M/s Ram Gopal Ramesh Kumar vs. M/s Salig Ram Ram Parkash' and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. While praying for quashing of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said revision has been dismissed only on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the summoning order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam reported as 1999(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 800 while holding that the summoning order, vide which, the process is issued, is not purely an interlocutory order but an intermediate or quasi judicial order and therefore revision against the same was maintainable. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under :- “6. Discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should, therefore, be exercised within the four corners of Section 397, whenever there has been miscarriage of justice in whatever manner. Under sub- section (2) of Section 397, there is a prohibition to exercise revisional jurisdiction against any interlocutory Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010 3 order so that inquiry or trial may proceed without any delay. But the expression `interlocutory order' has not been defined in the Code. In Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana, 1978(1) SCR 222, this Court has held that the expression `interlocutory order' in Section 397(2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in a broad or artistic sense and merely donates orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties and any order which substantially affects the rights of the parties cannot be said to be an `interlocutory order'. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978(1) SCR 749, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held an order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which when accepted will conclude the particular proceeding, cannot be held to be an interlocutory order. In V.C. Shukla v. State, 1980(2) SCR 380, this Court has held that the term `interlocutory order' used in the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be given a very liberal construction in favour of the accused in order to ensure complete fairness of the trial and the revisional power of the High Court or the Sessions Judge could be attracted if the order was not purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final. This being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and, therefore, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order in view of the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code.” Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the legal position. Crl. Misc. No.M-33967 of 2010 4 In view of the above, the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for deciding the same afresh on merits. However, the said petition shall be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the first date fixed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet