1980 (9) TMI 293 - HC - Indian Laws

Court distinguishes order affecting parties' rights as not interlocutory, emphasizes judicial scrutiny and magistrate's justified satisfaction.

The court determined that the order directing attachment and sealing of the flat was not an interlocutory order as it substantially affected the parties' ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order.2. Examination of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Analysis of the impact of the impugned order on the rights of the parties.4. Review of judicial precedents on the concept of 'interlocutory order'.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order:The judgment extensively discusses the concept of an 'interlocutory order'. The court refers to several judicial pronouncements, including Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, and V. C. Shukla v. State. It is highlighted that an interlocutory order is one of a purely interim and temporary nature or an order that is a step in aid of the proceeding. The court elucidates that orders affecting the rights of the parties or deciding certain rights cannot be termed as interlocutory. The court concludes that the order under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing attachment and sealing of the flat, is not an interlocutory order as it substantially affects the rights of the parties.2. Examination of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The judgment notes that the High Court is empowered under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to upset an impugned order if it is manifestly unjust and untenable in law. The court emphasizes that it cannot remain a passive spectator when an order is unjust. The inherent powers are discretionary and are meant to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.3. Analysis of the impact of the impugned order on the rights of the parties:The judgment discusses the impact of the impugned order on the rights of both parties. It is noted that an order of attachment and sealing of the flat directly affects the rights of both parties. If the order is implemented, the respondent is handicapped and suffers a loss even if they have a sound case on merits. Conversely, if the Magistrate declines to pass such an order, the applicant's rights are affected if they have a genuine case. The court underscores that such an order is not purely interim or temporary and has significant implications on the rights of the parties involved.4. Review of judicial precedents on the concept of 'interlocutory order':The judgment references several judicial precedents to elucidate the concept of 'interlocutory order'. In Amar Nath's case, the Supreme Court held that an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties is not an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye's case, it was observed that if every matter short of a final order is treated as interlocutory, the revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court would be rendered nugatory. The court also refers to the ratio in Mathuralal v. Banwarilal, which clarifies that the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code are to be read together, and the Magistrate's satisfaction is subject to judicial scrutiny.Conclusion:The judgment concludes that the impugned order directing attachment and sealing of the flat is not an interlocutory order. It substantially affects the rights of the parties and is not purely interim or temporary. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code allow it to intervene in such cases to prevent injustice. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that the Magistrate's satisfaction is justified and not arbitrary. The rule is discharged, affirming that the impugned order cannot be termed as an interlocutory order by any yardstick.