Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161. 397(2) – Prosecution csae was that FIR was registered on 26 December 2016 for offences punishable under ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302, 307, 114 and 149 of the IPC – According to the FIR, on 25 December 2016, the accused came to the village of the appellant armed with knives and rods, and abused and assaulted some of the villagers – A few of the accused allegedly assaulted and stabbed the appellant, his elder brother and another villager with knives – The grievously injured persons were first taken to the Government Hospital at Maddur – The injured were referred to Mandya District Hospital from where they were further transferred to K R Hospital, Mysore – Appellant claimed that the FIR was registered on the information furnished by him, making him the informant – During trial, PW 2 (doctor of Maddur Government Hospital), stated that the appellant and another injured witness were brought by the police to Maddur Government Hospital and that he had referred both the patients to Mandya District Hospital for further treatment – PW 4, working at K R Hospital, Mysore stated that the statement of the appellant was recorded in his presence by the PSI Maddur on 26 December 2016 – During the course of his examination-in-chief, the Public Prosecutor wanted to mark the complaint together with the signature of the appellant as an exhibit – An objection was raised by the defense counsel on the ground that in view of the statement of PW 2, during the course of his examination, the statement of the appellant is referable to s.161 of the CrPC and cannot be marked as an exhibit – Trial court refused to mark the complaint on the basis of the statement by PW 2, and on the ground that PW 7 did not depose in his evidence that he gave the complaint to the police – The State did not pursue its remedies against the order of the trial court – Appellant instituted a criminal revision under ss.397(1) and 401 of the CrPC before High Court – High Court upheld the order of the trial court, holding that the appellant as the de-facto complainant had no locus standi to file the revision petition and the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order and therefore dismissed the revision petition in view of the bar contained in s.397(2) of CrPC – Hence instant appeal – Held: On the basis of the deposition of PW 4, it prima facie appears that the statement of the appellant was recorded on
26 December 2016 at K R Hospital, Mysore in the presence of PW
4 – On the basis of the statement of PW7, intimation about the offence was received at PS Maddur following which the FIR was registered on 26 December 2016 – Thus, the basis of the order of the trial court, which has been upheld by the High Court, namely, that the statement of the appellant is a statement under s.161 CrPC is erroneous – The statement of the appellant, in fact, was the basis on which the FIR was registered – Hence, it was legitimately open to the prosecution to have the statement proved and marked as an exhibit during the course of the trial – There would be a serious miscarriage of justice in the course of the criminal trial if the statement were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the basis of the registration of the FIR – The order of the trial judge cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the substantive course of the prosecution.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397(2) – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court in criminal matter – Scope of – The revisional jurisdiction u/s.397 of CrPC can be exercised against the final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory order where the interest of the public justice requires to subvert manifest illegality and to prevent gross miscarriage of justice – In the present case, the order of the trial court declining to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit is an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature – The revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 r/w 401 of CrPC is a discreationary in nature and can be exercised suo motu and there can be no bar on the third party invoking such jurisdiction inviting the attention of the High Court that an occasion to exercise the power has arisen – Since the order of the trial court is not interlocutory in nature and that the bar u/s.397(2) of the CrPC in inapplicable, a criminal revision filed by an appellant-informant against the said order of the trial court was maintainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There would be a serious miscarriage of justice in the course of the criminal trial if the statement were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the basis of the registration of the FIR. The order of the trial judge cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the substantive course of the prosecution. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. A court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature. Any order which substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be said to be an “interlocutory order”. [Para 12][1116-B-D]
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460
[2012] 7 SCR 988; Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant (2010)
2 SCC 190 : [2009] 16 SCR 686; KK Patel v State of Gujarat (2000) 6 SCC 195 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 312; Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137 : [1978] 1 SCR 222; Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 : [1978] 1 SCR 749 – relied on.
2. In the present case, the objection taken by the defense counsel (which was upheld by the trial judge) that the statement of the informant is a statement under Section 161 CrPC travels to the root of the case of the prosecution and its acceptance would substantially prejudice the case of the prosecution. According to the charge sheet, the statement of the appellant/ informant formed the basis of the FIR and set the criminal law in motion. Rejection of the prayer of the Public Prosecutor to mark the statement as an exhibit would possibly imperil the validity of the FIR. In this background, the order of the trial court declining to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit is an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature. In the present case, if the statement of the appellant/ informant is not permitted to be marked as an exhibit, it would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. [Para 13][1117-G; 1118-A-B]
3. The challenge to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the appellant impugning an order passed during the pendency of the trial must also be rejected. The revisional jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the CrPC, is a discretionary jurisdiction that can be exercised by the revisional court suo motu so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order recorded or passed by the trial court or the inferior court. As the power of revision can be exercised by the High Court even suo moto, there can be no bar on a third party invoking the revisional jurisdiction and inviting the attention of the High Court that an occasion to exercise the power has arisen. [Para 14][1118-C-E]
4. The view of the High Court that a victim/ complainant needs to restrict his revision petition to challenging final orders either acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation (three requirements mentioned under Section 372 CrPC) is unsustainable, so long as the revision petition is not directed against an interlocutory order, an inbuilt restriction in Section 397(2) of the CrPC. In the present case, the appellant filed a criminal revision as his interests as an informant and as an injured victim were adversely affected by the trial court rejecting the prayer to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit. Having held that the order of the trial court is not interlocutory in nature and that the bar under Section 397(2) of the CrPC in inapplicable, a criminal revision filed by an informant against the said order of the trial court was maintainable. [Para 15][1119-A-C]
K Pandurangan v. SSR Velusamy (2003) 8 SCC 625; Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant (2010) 2 SCC 190 : [2009]
16 SCR 686; Menoka Malik v. State of West Bengal (2019) 18 SCC 721 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.