Charge-framing orders are not interlocutory where they reject discharge and compel trial, making revision maintainable.

An order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it is not a mere procedural step. The provision curbing revisions is confined to purely interim orders and does not extend to orders that substantially affect the accused's rights. By rejecting discharge, concluding the pre-trial inquiry, and compelling the accused to face trial, a charge-framing order affects liberty and the fairness of the process. It is therefore revisable under Section 397(1).

---

---

Issues: Whether an order framing charge during a criminal trial is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so as to bar revision.

Analysis: The expression "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) is not to be read in its widest ordinary sense. It was enacted to curtail revisions against purely interim or procedural orders and to avoid delay, but not to exclude orders of moment that substantially affect the rights of the accused. A plea by the accused which, if accepted, would terminate the proceedings cannot be treated as merely interlocutory if its rejection forces him to stand trial. An order framing charge is not a routine procedural step: it rejects the claim to discharge, concludes the pre-trial inquiry, and compels the accused to face trial. Such an order affects a valuable right and bears directly on the liberty of the accused and the fairness of the process.

Conclusion: An order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within Section 397(2) and is revisable under Section 397(1).

---