Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt states that respondent No.7 has also expired. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent No.7. Permission granted. Petitioner to carry out amendment forthwith. 2. By filing this revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”), the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara on 30.6.2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 1998 setting aside the order passed under section 156(3) of the Code for investigation by learned JMFC, Vadodara on 30.6.1997 in Inquiry Case No.83 of 1997.
3. According to the petitioner, he filed a complaint in the Court of learned JMFC under sections 120(B), 465, 467, 468, 471, 475 and 114 of the IPC and it was registered as Inquiry Case No.83 of 1997. The trial Court passed an order under section 156(3) of the Code and directed the P.I. or any officer of City Police Station to investigate and make report within 30 days. Therefore, the respondent accused preferred Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 1998 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara challenging the said order. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, the Sessions Court by impugned order allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said decision, present revision application has been filed.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for respondent Nos.2 to 7. I have also perused the impugned order.
5. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the order challenged before the Sessions Court was an inter-locutory order and under section 397 of Code, the revision application was not maintainable and hence, the Sessions Court committed error in exercising jurisdiction vested in it and hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is required to be restored. He relied on the decision in case of Chandrakant Keshavlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2001(3) GLH 508.
6. Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the allegations in the complaint were vague and therefore, the said order was challenged before the Sessions Court, who set aside the order. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order of Sessions Court. Learned advocate tried to go into the merits of the complaint filed in the trial Court, but as the Court was hearing challenge to inter-locutory order, he was not permitted to make oral submission with regard to merits of the complaint.
7. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the trial Court directed the police under section 156(3) of the Code to investigate and make report. In the decision of Chandrakant Keshavlal Shah (supra), this Court took a view that order under section 156(3) is inter-locutory order and such order cannot be challenged in revision. The Court observed as under:
“6. Thereafter, the next stage is under sec.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint. If, after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under sec.202 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismissed the complaint and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. It is only an order under sec.203 of the Code which is called a final order. Proceedings taken under secs.200, 201 and 202 of the Code are proceedings of interlocutory nature and proceedings in aid of final order and final order may be an order for dismissal of complaint under sec.203 or an order for issuing process under sec.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only these two orders under secs.203 and 204 of the Code which are called final orders which are amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge or to concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Any order passed under secs.200, 202 or 156(3) of the Code is nothing but interlocutory order. No revision against an interlocutory order could be entertained and decided by the Sessions Judge in view of the prohibition contained in sec.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub-sec(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The impugned order recalling earlier order under sec.156(3) of the Code is nothing but interlocutory order passed during enquiry and such order could not be challenged in revision in view of bar created by sec.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
inter-locutory order, learned Sessions Judge committed error in exercising jurisdiction vested in him. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
9. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara on 30.6.2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 1998 is set aside and the order passed under section 156(3) of the Code for investigation by learned JMFC, Vadodara on 30.6.1997 in Inquiry Case No.83 of 1997/M.Case No.20 of 1997 is restored. The trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA, J.) shekhar*