Court reiterates non-maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) of CrPC
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench has quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan I, which had entertained and allowed a revision petition against an interlocutory order. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on July 15, 2026, underscores the bar on revision petitions concerning interlocutory orders as per Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The case originated with a petition filed by Dr. Uma Gupta, who challenged the order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. This order had permitted Satya Prakash Kumawat, the accused-respondent, to cross-examine Dr. Uma Gupta despite previous failures to utilize the opportunity. The cross-examination was initially closed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Court, Jaipur on September 19, 2022, due to repeated non-compliance by the respondent.
The controversy centered around an application under Section 311 CrPC, which allows for the summoning of persons for examination if necessary for a just decision. The application was rejected by the trial court on May 18, 2023, an order deemed interlocutory and thus not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of CrPC. However, the respondent pursued a revision petition, which was erroneously entertained and allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Citing the precedent set in the Supreme Court's judgment in Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam (2009), the High Court reaffirmed that orders under Section 311 are interlocutory, and revision petitions against such orders are barred. Justice Dhand's order emphasized that the powers of revision cannot be exercised concerning interlocutory orders during trial or other proceedings, as expressly stated in Section 397(2).
The High Court's decision to quash the Additional Sessions Judge's order is a reminder of the procedural limitations imposed on revisional courts. It reinforces the legal framework designed to prevent unnecessary delays and procedural abuses in the judicial process.
Dr. Uma Gupta's legal team, led by Advocates Mr. Manak Chand Jain and Mr. Prayaag Jain, successfully argued that the revisional court's order was in contravention of established legal principles. The respondent, represented by Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, did not make an appearance during the proceedings.
The ruling also leaves the door open for the respondent to explore other legal remedies to challenge the trial court's order, ensuring that the principles of justice and due process remain intact.
Bottom line:-
Revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 311 CrPC, Section 397 CrPC, Section 397(2) CrPC
Dr. Uma Gupta v. Satya Prakash Kumawat, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944638
