Dr. Muppala Sambashiva Rao v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9166 OF 2018 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-de facto complainant to quash the order dated 20-06-2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 220 of 2017 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri (for short, 'the Court below'). 2.

The State filed Criminal M.P.No. 919 of 2017 in C.C.No. 941 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri (for short, 'the trial Court'), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon the distributor of P.W.1 by name S.Samba Siva Rao to confront certain documents. The trial Court by order dated 24-08-2017 dismissed the said petition. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 220 of 2017 on the file of the Court below. The Court below by the impugned order confirmed the order of the trial Court. 3.

Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed for the following relief: "For the aforesaid reasons, it is therefore prays that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 20-06-2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 220 of 2017 by the learned XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge's Court - cum - XVI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court - cum - III Addl. Family Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri in confirming the order dated 11-09-2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 919 of 2017 in C.C.No. 941 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and consequently allow the Crl.M.P.No. 919 of 2017 in C.C.No. 941 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Makajgiri and to pass such other orders as it may deem fit and proper."

A perusal of the relief extracted hereinabove clearly shows that the petitioner did not seek the relief to quash the order passed in Criminal M.P.No. 919 of 2017 in

C.C.No. 941 of 2015 but sought to quash the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 220 of 2017.

4.

As seen from the material on record, the order passed by the trial Court is purely interlocutory in nature, against which no revision is maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam1 categorically held that an order passed under Section 311 or 91 of Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature and in view of the interdict contained under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C., the same is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sethuraman (supra) and the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside on this ground alone.

5.

The criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed in consequence. _____________________________ Date: 29-08-2018.

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

JSK 1 2009 CRIMINAL L.J. 2247