Warning Against Filing Frivolous Petitions Doesn't Make Interlocutory Order Revisable: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the cautionary observation of a Magistrate, while rejecting a plea seeking cancellation of bail, asking parties not to file “frivolous and vexatious petitions in future” is interlocutory in nature, which cannot be challenged in revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 58]Reversing the findings of the Sessions Judge vis-à-vis nature of such order, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ruled–“A direction to refrain from filing frivolous and vexatious litigation does not decide any substantive right of the parties in the main proceeding nor does it amount to a final determination on the question of cancellation of bail. It remains in the realm of procedural directions aimed at preventing misuse of court processes.”A woman (Opposite Party No. 2) filed an FIR against his husband (pro-forma Opposite Party No. 1) and in-laws for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband and in-laws applied for bail before the JMFC, Balasore and were granted the same. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail and by showing violation of bail conditions, the lady filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 437(5) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of bail. The JMFC not only rejected such plea but also warned the parties not to file such frivolous and vexatious petitions in the future without verifying proper proof.Against such order, the public prosecutor filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Balasore under Section 397 of the CrPC. In the said petition, the petitioner (the father-in-law of the lady) raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision petition. He argued that an application for bail or for the cancellation of bail are interlocutory in nature and orders passed thereupon are interlocutory orders; therefore, no revision against such orders would lie as per the express bar under Section 397(2), CrPC.Notwithstanding the above argument, the Sessions Judge held that the observation made by the JMFC asking the parties to desist from filing such applications in the future would take the order beyond the ambit of an 'interlocutory order'. Therefore, the bar under Section 397(2) will not come to play. Resultantly, the Sessions Judge rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and admitted the revision petition for adjudication. Impugning the order of the Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482, CrPC/ Section 528, BNSS.The core issue that arose for consideration was whether the order passed by the JMFC, Balasore dismissing the application under Section 437(5), CrPC seeking cancellation of bail, while directing the prosecution and the informant not to file frivolous and vexatious petitions of similar nature in future, can be termed as an “interlocutory order” within the meaning of Section 397(2), CrPC.To elaborate what an interlocutory order truly denotes, the Court placed reliance on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977), wherein the Apex Court held that an order which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties and is merely procedural in nature would be interlocutory. However, an order which affects the substantive rights of the parties or decides a matter of moment, even if passed in an ongoing proceeding, would not be purely interlocutory and would be revisable.Justice Panigrahi noted that the JMFC while dismissing the application for cancellation of bail made a cautionary observation warning the parties “not to file this type of frivolous and vexatious petitions of similar nature in future without verifying proper proof.” According to the Judge's reasoning, such observation did not impose a blanket prohibition on the right of the informant or the prosecution to approach the Court seeking any legitimate relief. It merely barred them from filing “frivolous and vexatious” pleas.“The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, appears to have read the said observation in an expansive manner by holding that it has a “chilling effect” on the right of the informant to seek cancellation of bail in future and therefore the order ceases to be interlocutory. With due respect, this Court is unable to agree with the said reasoning,” he added.The Court said that the aforesaid observation of the JMFC was merely a caution against misuse of Court procedures. It neither decided substantive rights of the parties nor did it have any bearing upon final determination of the bail cancellation plea. Therefore, it being merely a procedural observation, qualifies to be an 'interlocutory order', which is not entertainable in the revisional jurisdiction provided under Section 397, CrPC.Accordingly, the Court found the reasoning of the Sessions Court to be flawed and set aside the impugned ...

Warning Against Filing Frivolous Petitions Doesn't Make Interlocutory Order Revisable: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Warning Against Filing Frivolous Petitions Doesn't Make Interlocutory Order Revisable: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers