- (1.) Heard Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State - opposite party.
(2.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No.575 of 2015 (State Vs. Jai Singh and others), under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar to the extent that the request for summoning Dr. Sandeep Bansal, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and the doctors at Anand Hospital, Meerut and AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi as witnesses to prove the medical reports prepared by them, has been refused.
(3.) In response to an objection taken by the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to the entertainability of the present application the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is of an interlocutory nature and accordingly the remedy of revision against the said order is barred in terms of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. To support his contention reliance has been placed on the decision in Seturaman v Rajamanickam1, wherein it has been held that the orders issued by the trial court on an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature and a revision against such order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The relevant observations made in the decision are as follows:- "5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent-accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any, manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e. one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction...";