Patna High Court - OrdersBindhyachal Ranjan vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 July, 2009Author:Abhijit SinhaBench:Abhijit SinhaIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Cr.Misc. No.42901 of 2007
BINDHYACHAL RANJAN, SON OF RAJ KISHORE BHAGAT,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KISHANDASPUR, P.S. BUDHUCHAK
(KAHALGAON), DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR..................PETITIONER.

                                      Versus

   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
   2. SHEELA DEVI, WIFE OF BINDHYACHAL RANJAN AND D/O
      RAM BIHARI CHOWDHARY, RESIDENT OF SHERMARI
      BAZAR, P.S. PIRPAINTY, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.
      .........................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                    -----------

For the Petitioner       : Mr. D.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For the State            : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.

                                     ------------

                                   O R D E R

                The complainant of Complaint Case No.1254 of 2002 has

      filed this application for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2007 passed

      by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Criminal

      Revision No.302 of 2005, whereby he has set aside the order dated

      30.7.2005passed by Sri Manoj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First

      Class, Bhagalpur, in the said Complaint Case whereunder he had

      taken cognizance underSections 494,147,148,114,494and504I.P.C. against all the persons impleaded as accused.The complainant filed the said complaint on 18.12.2000

      inter alia alleging that his marriage with Sheela Devi was solemnized

      on 5.6.1996 at the Shiv Mandir at Kahalgaon but at about 8 P.M. on

      13.6.1996 Ram Bihari Choudhary and others at the point of pistols

      forcibly took away Sheela Devi. The complainat is said to have sent a

      legal notice dated 12.6.1997 but receiving no response his father Raj-2-Kishore Bhagat lodged Complaint Case No.589 of 1997 before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, for the commission of

offences underSections 380,406,504,120-Band364I.P.C. The

complainant also alleged that while taking away Sheela Devi forcibly,

her father had also taken away ornaments worth Rs.33000/- and cash

to the tune of Rs.2000/-. It is also alleged that notwithstanding the

fact that Sheela Devi was his legally wedded wife, her family

members, in the lust for money, got her married to one Rajendra

Prasad Jaiswal on 7.6.2002 at the temple of Maa Purna Devi and entry

in regard to the said marriage was made at serial no.589 in the

marriage register maintained in the temple. The further allegation is

that Sheela Devi was forced into an illegal marriage and was living in

adultery with the said Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal in his house. The

further grievance of the complainant is that Sheela Devi at the

instigation of her family members had filed a case underSection 498AI.P.C. and a Divorce Case No.12 of 1996 before the Family Court,

Bhagalpur, both of which were pending.The only point raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the learned Sessions Court had erred in law in

entertaining the revision as an order taking cognizance being

interlocutory in nature no revision lies thereagainst.An interlocutory order denotes an order of purely interim or

temporary nature and pertains to some matters in the proceeding

which purely assumes the character of steps-in-aid of the proceeding.

On the contrary orders which decides or touches the rights and-3-liabilities of the parties cannot be termed as interlocutory orders.

Therefore, the order passed by a Magistrate taking cognizance of an

offence is a judicial proceeding and the court of revision has got the

power to correct it in revision.InAmarnath Vs. State(AIR 1977 SC

2185) it was held that orders which are matters of moment and which

affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of

the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the

purview of the revisional jurisdiction. In taking cognizance upon a

complaint the rights of the accused is affected and therefore in no case

can the taking of cognizance be deemed to be an interlocutory order.In Rajender Vs. Uttam reported in (1999) 3 SCC 134 the Apex Court

went on to hold that an order directing issuance of process, is not

purely interlocutory and has to be held to be intermediate or quasi

final and therefore, the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised.For the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs, I find

no merit in this application which is dismissed.(Abhijit Sinha,J)

Patna High Court, Patna.Dated: The 21st day             of July, 2009.
Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.