Process orders in criminal complaints are revisable; good-faith complaints to lawful superiors may fall within defamation Exception 8.

An order issuing process in a criminal complaint is not a purely interlocutory order under Section 397(2) CrPC because it affects the accused's right to face trial; it is an intermediate or quasi-final order and remains open to revisional scrutiny. Applying that principle, the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to interfere. On the defamation issue, a complaint made in good faith to a superior authority about a subordinate's conduct was protected by Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC, and the materials did not disclose a sustainable offence of defamation. The High Court's order was set aside, the revisional order was restored, and the criminal proceeding was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order issuing process in a criminal complaint is an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the complaint and inquiry report disclosed an offence of defamation or were protected by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether an order issuing process in a criminal complaint is an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: An interlocutory order, for the purpose of Section 397(2), is one of purely interim or temporary character which does not decide or substantially affect the rights of the parties. An order issuing process affects the accused's right to be put to trial and is not purely interlocutory. It is an intermediate or quasi-final order and therefore remains open to revisional scrutiny.

Conclusion: The order issuing process was revisable, and the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to interfere.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and inquiry report disclosed an offence of defamation or were protected by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: On the complaint and the material gathered in inquiry, the accusation made to the superior authority concerned the conduct of the complainant and was made in the context of an official complaint. Such a communication, made in good faith to a person having lawful authority, falls within Exception 8 to Section 499. In the absence of a sustainable case of defamation, requiring the accused to face trial would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: No offence of defamation was made out and the criminal proceeding was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside, the revisional order of the Sessions Judge was restored, and the criminal proceeding itself was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order issuing process in a criminal complaint is an intermediate or quasi-final order amenable to revision, and a good-faith accusation made to a lawful superior authority is protected by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

---