AMAR NATH AND OTHERS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 29-07-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
222 
AMAR NATH AND OTHERS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 
July 29, 1977 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, JJ,]! 
' Code of Crin1inal Procedure, 1973-Ss. 397 and 482-Scope of. 
Interlocutory order-What is-Order co1npelling persons to face trial with-
out proper application of nlind by the Magistrate-If an interlocutory order. 
In the F.l.R. filecl by the complainant, a number of persons, including the 
appellants, were mentioned as participants. in a murder. On perusal of the final 
report submitted by the Police, the Judicial Magistrate set them at liberty. The 
complainant's revision petition against the order of the Judicial 1'.lagistrate Was 
dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge "'hereupon the complainant filed a 
regular complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against all the accused, includ-
ing the appellants. 
When Otis complaint \Vas dismissed by the Judicial Magis-
trate, the complainant went in revision before the Sessions Judge \vho remanded 
the case to the Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate 
then straightaway issued summons to the appellants. 
Dismissing the appellant's petition under ss. 397 and 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 
the High Court held that the Judicial Magistrate's order beihg an interlocutory· 
order, a revision to the High Court was barred by s. 397(2) and that since the 
revision was barred, the Court could not take, up the case under s. 482 of the 
Code. 
Allowing the nppeal and remanding the case to the High Court, 
HELD : The impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate could not be said 
to be an interlocutory order and does not fall within the mischief of s. 397(2) 
and, therefore, a revision against this order was fully competent under s. 397( I) 
or under s. 482 of the Code because the scope of both the sections in 'a matter 
of this kind is more or Jess the same. 
r229H] 
I. Where a revision to the High Court agaiilst thei order of the Subordinate 
Judge is expressly barred under s. 397(2) the inherent powers contained ins. 482 
would not be available to defeat the bar contained ins. 397(2). Section 482 
contains inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but 
preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. 
A harmonious 
construction of ss. 397 and 482 would lead to the. conclusion that, where 
a 
particular order is expressly barred under s. 397(2) and cannot be the subject 
of revision by the High Court, the provisions of s. 482 would not apply. It is 
\\-'ell settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised 
when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. 
Where there is an 
express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the 
exerdse of inherent powers. 
r224G-H1 
2. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance 
\.Vhich has been used in various statutes. 
Decided cases have laid down that 
interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and 
liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. 
The term "interlocutory 
order" ins. 397(2) has been used in a restricted sense. and not in any broad and 
artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature 
\vhich do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. 
Any order which substantia1ly affects the right of the accused, or dec1jes certain 
rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a 
revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against 
the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this provision in s. 397 
of the c·ode. For instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning ewes, passtng 
AMAR NATH v. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.) 
223 
orders for bail, calling for reports -and such other steps in aid. of the. pending 
A 
proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders agan~st which 
no 
revision would lie under s. 397(2) of the Code. But orders which are matter.s 
of moment .and v.·hich affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused Or a parti-
cular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocuto~y orders so as to be 
outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the .High Court. [227D-Gl 
Central Bc111k of India v. Gokal Chand A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, 800, A-Johan 
Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.