S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) SINCE this Criminal revision must founder against the bed rock of a preliminary objection under Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against its very maintainability, it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts in any detail. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner way back in 1969 had instituted a complaint under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, against Piara Lal respondent, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, by his order dated the 23rd December, 1972, on the finding that there was no prima facie case against the accused. A revision was carried against the said order which met the same fate after an exhaustive judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated the 29th of April, 1974. A matter of some significance is that in this High Court, the revision petition was filed on the 1st of July, 1974 which was admitted to a hearing on the 2nd of September, 1974, which means that the order under revision was passed as also the revision in the High Court was filed long after the coming into the force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on the 1st of April, 1974.
(2.) MR . I.K. Mehta appearing for the respondent, whilst contending that the present criminal revision was not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has first placed reliance on a judgment of this Court by Gujral J., reported as Chhail Dass v. State of Haryana. : 1975 Cri. L.J. 129: (1974) 1 Cr L.T. 355. This undoubtedly supports his stand and he followed it up with the equally categoric observations of D.B. Lal, J, (who for a while adorned the Bench of this Court, as well,) in Surinder Singh v. Inder Singh. : 1974 Cri. L.J. 1361: (1974) 1 Cr. L.T. 427. This apart, a long string of authorities consistent with this view have been relied upon to which detailed reference is unnecessary, namely, Bindbasni and others v. State of U.P., 1975 Cri. L.J. 1660. Babu Balgonda Patil and others v. Dhanvakumar Bala Sahib Patil : 1976 Cri. L.J. 1872. Sunkara Para Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,, 1978 Cri. L.J. (NOC) 66. Babu Ram v. Mohammad Ali, 1977 Crr. L.J. (NOC) 117 (All) and Puvvula Abbulu v. The State Station House Officer, Law & Order, III Town Police Station Vijayawada : 1975 CRi. L.J. 139 (D.B.) Even Mr. G.R. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that this category of authorities undoubtedly lend support to the view canvassed by the respondent but he laid challenge to the correctness of the same. That there is a sizeable conflict of precedent on the point appears to be undeniable. Mr. Majithia placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dhruvanath Singh v. Shivanaresh Sharma, : 1975 Cri. L.J. 1710 and two Single Bench authorities of the Patna High Court reported as Narain Mahton and others v. Mahesh Prasad Singh : 1975 Cri. L.J. 1400 and Dhanushdhari Das and others v. Mathura Sah : 1978 Cri. L.J. 670. These judgments do lend credence to the contention advanced by Mr. Majithia and apparently run counter to those relied upon by Mr. Mehta in his support.
(3.) THE star argument of Mr. Majithia, however, was his reliance, by way of analogy, on P. Philip v. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1185. A perusal thereof would, however, show that this was directed primarily to the construction of section 399 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provisions of sections 397 (3) and 399 (3) undoubtedly are similar but as at present advised, it is not possible to say that they are either identical or in pari materia This apart, their Lordships have further observed that a purely interlocutory application in a pending action, which by itself is not an independent mode of seeking redress recognised by law, is not covered by the word "application" as used in section 484 (2) (a) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and it was not necessary to express any final opinion on that point. I take the view that the aforesaid judgment does not cover the present case either on all fours or by a conclusive analogy.;