Parmar Rameshchandra Ganpatray Vs. State of Gujarat

Parmar Rameshchandra Ganpatray


State of Gujarat

Para 19 There are types of orders, which ordinarily, the Court of law has to deal with. First the “final order”, secondly the “intermediate order”, and thirdly the “interlocutory order”.

Para 21 The legal wrangle began when different Courts gave their interpretations in the absence of any precise definition of the words “interlocutory order” occurring in the Code. The same not having been either illustratively or exhaustively defined, came to be given different shades on the facts of a case in which the said words were sought to be interpreted.

Para 22 The expression “interlocutory order” has not been defined either in the Code or elsewhere.

Para 45 The question, therefore, would arise as to when law does not recognize any such right in favor of a prospective accused at the time of registration of F.I.R. or investigation, the Sessions Court would have power to entertain a revision application against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Under this provision the Magistrate only directs the Jurisdictional Station House Officer to do what he is obliged in law under Sections 154 to 156 (1) of the Code.

Para 39 An order of police investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. is not an order of matter of moment, which affects or adjudicates the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial.

Para 43 In view of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the law appears to be well-settled that at the stage of investigation by the police either under Section 156(1) of the Code when the jurisdictional Station House Officer proceeds to investigate the matter of his own or under Section 156 (3) of the Code when he does so under the order of jurisdictional Magistrate, the prospective accused has no right of hearing.

Para 51 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an “interlocutory order” and the revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. would not lie. At the same time, an order of the Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an “interlocutory order”. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *