Order Disposing Application U/S 91 CrPC Interlocutory, No Revision Lies Against It: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the order of lower court allowing revision against rejection of application under Section 91 CrPC, reiterating that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and therefore no revision lies against it. Justice Atul Shreedharan was dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant who was aggrieved by the order of the lower court allowing revision against rejection of an application under Section 91 CrPC, moved by his wife. The case of the Applicant was that he was embroiled in a legal tussle with his Respondent/wife. The latter had filed a case of domestic violence against him. In pursuit of the same, she had moved an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking directions of the court to produce copy of FIR from a police station to prove the alleged affair of the Applicant with another woman. The court of magistrate rejected her application against which, she preferred a revision before the court of sessions. The sessions court allowed the revision, whose order was being challenged by the Applicant. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, the Applicant argued that the impugned order was bad in law since the power of revision was exercised to allow a petition against rejection of Application under Section 91 CrPC, which is inherently interlocutory in nature. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd & Ors., wherein it had embarked upon distinguishing interlocutory orders from interim orders. The Respondent on the other hand asserted that her application under Section 91 CrPC had not survived after the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the same was finally concluded and therefore, it could not have been said to be interlocutory in nature. She further argued that the Applicant had not raised the jurisdictional point before the court of revision and, therefore, the respective court did not enquire regarding its power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC. She also submitted that the Applicant had failed to specify as to what hardship or inconvenience or disadvantage or prejudice was caused to him by the impugned order. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sethuraman case, the Court noted that it is categorical regarding orders deciding applications under Sections 91 and 311 CrPC are interlocutory in nature. The order passed by the Supreme Court in (2009) 5 SCC 153 (Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam) is precise, unequivocal and unambiguous. It has clearly arrived at the finding that orders passed on the application under section 91 Cr.P.C. and section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature barring the jurisdiction of a criminal revision. Reasons have not been assigned in the said judgment as to why it considers the said orders passed in such applications, as interlocutory. However, the finding is unambiguous, unequivocal. Under the circumstances, judicial discipline demands that this Court feels bound by the said finding.Examining the submissions of the Parties, the Court observed that despite the claims of the Applicant, a bare perusal of the impugned order revealed that he did not question the jurisdiction of the revision court to entertain the revision petition. However, the Court reiterated the legal axiom that a point relating to law can be raised at any stage. It further opined that even if the question of jurisdiction was not brought up before the revision court, the respective judge ought to have known the law- Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an interlocutory order, is a question of law. Though the same was not taken before the Court of revision that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the revision on account of the bar of section 397(2) Cr.P.C, it cannot be said that the learned Court of revision ought not to have known the law relating to the bar on entertaining the criminal revision on account of 397(2). Rejecting the contentions raised by the Respondent, the Court observed that she could have resorted to another procedure available to her under the law if she felt aggrieved by the order passed by the magistrate. With the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned passed by the revision court. Case Title : Dadhibal Prasad Jaiswal V Smt. Sunita JaiswalClick Here To Read/Download Order

Order Disposing Application U/S 91 CrPC Interlocutory, No Revision Lies Against It: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags