Published on: April 5, 2022 at 07:20 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court countermanded a Lower Court order that stated Application Rejection under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code, the Impugned Order was interlocutory in Nature and thus not Subject to Revision.
Justice Atul Shreedharan was hearing an Application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code brought by the Applicant, who was dissatisfied with the Lower Court’s Order allowing Revision against Rejection of an Application under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code brought by his wife.
There was Legal Dispute between the husband and the wife and the wife had filed a Domestic Violence complaint against him. She filed an Application under the Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code, requesting that the Court direct her to produce a Copy of a First Information Report from a Police Station to prove the Applicant’s Alleged affair with another woman.
The Court of Magistrates denied her Application but Revision was granted by the Sessions Court, whose order was been challenged by the Applicant.
The Applicant argued taking into Consideration the Supreme Court’s decision in Sethuraman Vs Rajamanickam which stated that the Impugned Order was invalid in Law because the Power of Revision was used to allow a Petition against Rejection of an Application under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code, which is inherently interlocutory in nature.
He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd & Ors., in which it established a distinction between Interlocutory and Interim Orders.
The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that her Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code Application had died after the Impugned Order was issued. She also argued that because the Applicant did not raise the Jurisdictional Issue before the Court of Revision, the respective Court did not inquire about its Power to Exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court reaffirmed the Legal Axiom that a Legal Point can be raised at any stage. It also stated that even if the Issue of Jurisdiction was not raised before the Revision Court, the respective Judge should have been aware of the Law.
The Court observed that if the Respondent felt aggrieved by the Magistrate’s Order, she could have used another Procedure available to her under the Law.