R.R.YADAV,J. - (1.) INSTANT Misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.3.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh out of Final Report No. 8/95 submitted by police Station, Sandwa and subsequently the same final report was registered as Complaint Case No. 129/95 Budha Ram v. Shanker Lal relating to the offences under Section 354, IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2.) MR . K.L. Thakur, learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that since summoning of the accused or taking of a cognizance is an interlocutory order, therefore, neither revision lies nor proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be initiated. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is mis-conceived, inasmuch as the phraseology of sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C. enjoin that although against the interlocutory order, no revision lies within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. yet such orders can always be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that nothing in this Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In fact, power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is residuary in nature and its applicability can be extended even to interlocutory orders. Irrespective of the fact that no revision lies against an interlocutory order under sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. yet the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
(3.) IT goes without saying that the order issuing the process or taking cognizance is an interlocutory order but that does not mean that since it is an interlocutory order, therefore, the proceedings cannot be dropped under Section 482, Cr.P.C. even if it is found by the High Court that the materials collected by the investigating officer or statements recorded by the learned Magistrate on the face of it, do not disclose any offence against the accused. In my humble opinion, no person can be tried without a prima facie case against him, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is hereby over-ruled and I propose to decide it on merit.;