Order Rejecting Plea To Recall Witness For Cross-Examination Is Interlocutory, Not Revisable: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to cross-examine the complainant, after holding that the revision petition itself was not maintainable.
The petitioner had filed a case under section 138 NI Act, against the respondent. After recording of petitioner's statement, several opportunities were given to the respondent for cross-examination, which was not done. Thereafter an application was submitted by the respondent under Section 311 CrPC for summoning the petitioner for cross-examination.
This application was rejected by the trial court. Against this order, a revision petition was filed which was allowed by the revisional court, and the respondent was directed to cross-examine the petitioner. This order was challenged before the High Court.
It was argued by the petitioner that the order that rejected the application under Section 311 CrPC was an interlocutory order and not a final one. Hence, no revision petition was maintainable against the same.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, in which it was held that the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the application submitted under Section 311 CrPC, was an interlocutory order and the revision petition against such order was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.
The Court also perused Section 397(2), and held that a bare perusal of the provision indicated that the powers of revision under Section 397(1) was not exercisable in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
Accordingly, the order of the Revisional Court was set aside and the petition was allowed.
Title: Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289