S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) SHRI Karam Singh; Advocate, filed a Private complaint against the respondents for the offence under Sections 420/34, Indian Penal Code. On this complaint, the evidence offered by the complainant was recorded and ultimately after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur, found that a prima facie case under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the respondents and they were accordingly charged there under.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order of the Learned Magistrate, the present petitioner has approached this Court in this revision. Mr. H.S. Toor, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection to the effect that this revision is not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code), which states that the powers of revision conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 397 of the Code shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal or inquiry or other proceedings. According to Mr. Toor, the order of the Magistrate to frame the charge, as stated above, being an interlocutory order, this matter does not lie under Section 401 of the Code. I do not agree with him. The stage of framing charge in a warrant trial is distinct state which determines not only the fact of the prosecution but also the question whether accused is liable to be proceeded further in the trial. If the Magistrate frames a charge than it would follow that further proceedings would be under taken and the accused concerned would have to undergo further trial in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, this question as regards the framing of the charge finally decides the fact of a particular distinct stage in the course of the trial and hence such a decision cannot be considered to be a decision amounting to an interlocutory order. I am of the opinion that the order framing a charge against the accused for a particular offence is not an order which is covered by Sub-Section (2) of Section 397 of the Code and, therefore, the revisional powers of this Court to revise such an order is not barred.
(3.) I have gone through the evidence recorded in the case. To state shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant was in need of a suitable match for his young daughter Satnam Kaur aged about 23 years. Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 1 approached the complainant and proposed the name of his relation Amarjit Singh, Respondent No. 3, for the marriage with Satnam Kaur and represented that he (Amarjit Singh) was a handsome, healthy boy and fit for marriage and that he was about 23/24 years of age. Amarjit Singh was in fact impotent and unfit for marriage and these facts came to the notice of the complainant after the marriage of Satnam Kaur with Amarjit Singh was performed. The representations made by the respondents were a false and were intentionally made to mislead complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had to spend huge amount of money on the marriage of Satnam Kaur and that the respondents did not intentionally disclose to him the physical infirmities of Amarjit Singh even during the betrothal ceremony or at the time of marriage. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence led by the complainant came to the conclusion that only an offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the respondents.;