State's application to recall witness in forgery case dismissed as interlocutory order not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC

The MP HC dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that dismissed the State's application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling a witness in a forgery case involving a will and valuable security. The court held that the impugned order was purely interlocutory as it neither culminated the criminal proceedings nor finally decided parties' rights and liabilities. Citing SC precedent, the court ruled that revision against interlocutory orders is not maintainable under Section 397(2) CrPC, distinguishing between final, intermediate, and interlocutory orders for revisional jurisdiction purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges.
3. Nature of the order under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. - interlocutory or not.
4. Maintainability of revision petition against an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.:
The applicant/complainant No. 1 challenged the order dated 5.10.2020, whereby the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 1/State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The application sought the recall of respondent No. 6 for further examination to place on record certified copies of papers and proceedings related to the alleged forged Will and estate/assets of late Parmanand Bhai Patel. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the complaint was being tried under Sections 225-237 of Cr.P.C., which do not provide for recalling any witness or complainant prior to framing of charges or recording evidence before framing charges.

2. Applicability of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges:
The applicant argued that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is couched in wide terms and applies to any stage of all proceedings, enquiries, and trials under Cr.P.C. The absence of a provision for recall of a witness under Sections 225-237 of Cr.P.C. does not denude the court of its powers under Section 311. The applicant cited the case of Boby alias Sanjeev Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 Cri LJ 3662, where it was held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised not only for the examination of witnesses but also to order the production of any document if necessary for the just decision in the case. The applicant contended that the prosecution should not be deprived of its opportunity to prove the case with the best possible evidence and that exercising the power under Section 311 at the stage of framing charges would prevent unnecessary delays.

3. Nature of the order under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. - interlocutory or not:
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory, hence no revision would lie against such an order. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2017 SC 3620, which categorized orders as final, intermediate, and interlocutory, stating that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of final and intermediate orders but not interlocutory orders.

4. Maintainability of revision petition against an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.:
The court examined whether the order under challenge was interlocutory. It referenced several cases, including M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, to determine that an order that does not culminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties is interlocutory. The court concluded that the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was interlocutory, as it did not decide any substantive right of the litigating parties.

Conclusion:
The court held that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and, therefore, no revision petition against such an order is maintainable under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as not maintainable.

---