TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 200 of Cr.P.C. against accused No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 alleging that accused No. 1, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and youngest brother Mr. Siddharth P. Patel colluded with each other and with common intention created a forged will purporting it to be the last genuine will and testament of late Parmanand Bhai Patel, consequently deceived and caused damage to the applicant and respondent No. 6. It was further alleged that accused No.1, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Siddharth P. Patel have committed forgery of valuable security and will, by making & possessing counterfeit seal intending to use it as genuine and by fraudulent cancellation & destruction of the Will and codicil of late Parmanand Bhai Patel, thereby they committed offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 477 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class examined the witnesses cited therein under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 23.8.2011 issued direction to Police Station Lordganj to submit an inquiry report in respect of the complaint. The said part of order dated 23.8.2011 was set aside by the Sessions Court vide order dated 3.10.2011 in Criminal Revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide order dated 9.10.2015. Being aggrieved thereby respondent No.1/State filed a petition bearing No. 4662 of 2016 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 24.6.2016 remanded the said applications back to the trial Court for passing an order on merits relating to the documents cited in the applications. 9. Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 24.6.2016 before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 6563 of 2016 (Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2016) on the ground that he was not heard prior to passing the order dated 24.6.2016. The Supreme Court vide order dated 5.9.2016 set aside the order dated 24.6.2016 and remanded back the matter to this Court with direction to rehear M.Cr.C. No. 4662 of 2016. 10. On remand, this Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 16.5.2017. 11. The applicant and respondent No. 6 (original complainants) challenged the order dated 16.5.2017 before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7009 of 2017 (Criminal appeal No. 389 of 2018). The Supreme Court vide order (Annexure P-7) dated 13.3.2018 allowed production of several documents as prayed for in the applications filed by respondent No. 1/State. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the stage of framing of charges, the trial Court could not exercise its discretion to dismiss the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. because Section 311 itself permits summoning of the witnesses at any stage of an inquiry, trial or proceedings. It is further submitted that the prosecution cannot be deprived of its opportunity to prove the case with the best possible evidence. Should the charges be permitted to be framed at present and evidence be permitted to bring in at a later stage, it would lead to an unnecessary delay of the trial as fresh charges would have to be framed and trial would have to recede many steps. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant has prayed for relief to set aside the impugned order and to allow the application filed by respondent No.1/State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others - (2006) 3 SCC 374; Sheetala Prasad and others Vs. Sri Kant and another - (2010) 2 SCC 190 and decision of this Court in Heeralal @ Nimma S/o Ram Kumar Golhari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - 1997 (1) MPLJ 550.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others - (2004) 4 SCC 158; State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi - (2005) 1 SCC 568; Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam - (2009) 5 SCC 153; Natasha Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (State) - (2013) 5 SCC 741; Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2017) 14 SCC 809. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The Supreme Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) has observed that there are three categories of orders that a Court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction i.e. in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. 18. According to Section 397(2) CrPC, revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. It is well se....