RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE ETC. versus UTTAM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 11-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJENDRA KUMARSITARAM PANDE ETC. 
v. 
UTTAM AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 11, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197~Section 397(2)-0rder directing is-
suance of process-Whether interlocutory--Wlzether such order amenable to 
revisional jurisdiction-Held, such order is not purely interlocutory but inter-
C mediate or quasi fina/-Revisional jurisdiction, held, could there[ ore be exer-
cised-Wltere no case made out on facts, it is fit case for quashing order of 
issuance of process and proceedings itself-Penal Code, Sections 500, 499 
exception 8. 
D 
Penal Code 1860-Sections, 500, 499 exception 8---Avemtent that false 
imputations made by accused to Treasury Officer that complainant went to 
office in drunken state, abused senior official and used filthy lan-
guage-Report of Treasury Officer to Magistrate indicating that departmental 
inquiry had found complainant guilty-Held, 011 fact, case falls within excep-
E tion 8 to Section 499-Code of Criminal Procedure 1974, Section 202( 1). 
F 
The complainant alleged that the accused had defamed him when 
they, inter alia, made a false complaint to the Treasury Officer, Amravati, 
falsely imputing that he had come to the office in a drunken state and 
abused the Treasury Officer among others, and of using filthy language. 
The Magistrate postponed the issue of process against the accused and 
directed the TreasurY Officer to submit a report under Section 202(1), Cr. 
PC. After receipt of the report, the Magistrate, holding that sufficient 
material existed for issuance of process, accordingly issued summons 
against the accused. The Sessions Judge, in revision, while setting aside 
G the order of the Magistrate, found that the Magistrate having directed an 
inquiry under Section 202, was not thereafter justified in discarding the 
report of the Treasury Officer. The High Court held otherwise, and con-
cluded that the order directing issuance of process being an interlocutory 
order, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with it in his 
H revisional jurisdiction. 
580 
";J 
-,. 
R.K.S.PANDEv. UTIAM 
581 
Before this Court, it was contended for the accused- appellants that A 
the issuance of process is not an interlocutory order; and that the com-
plaint read with the report of the Treasury Officer brought it within 
exception 8 to Section 499. Further, though the remedy of recalling the 
process is available in terms of KM. Mathews v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1992) 
SC 2206, the matter being before this Court, it can consider the averments 
to determine whether a case is made out. 
~ 
It was argued for the respondent that the order of the High Court 
was justified and needed no interference. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
Held : 1.1. The expression 'interlocutory order' has not been defined 
in Cr.PC. The position in law is that the expression, as used in Section 
397(2), has been used in a restricted sense and merely denotes orders 
purely of an interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch 
B 
c 
the important rights or liabilities of the parties. [584-1''-G] 
D 
An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which when 
accepted will conclude the particular proceeding is not an interlocutory 
order. [ 584-H] 
It has to be give11 a very liberal construction in favour of the accused. 
The revisional power of the court could be attracted if the order was not 
purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final. [585-A] 
Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, [1978] 1 SCR 222; Madhu Limaye v. 
State of Maharashtra, [1978] 1 SCR 749 and V.C. Shukla v. State, [1980] 2 
SCR 380, relied on. 
1.2. An order directing issuance of process is not purely inter-
locutory. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi 
final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be 
exercised against the same. [585-B] 
2. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not defama-
E 
F 
G 
,.. '-
tion to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of 
those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject 
matter of the accusation. The report of the Treasury Officer clearly indi-
cates that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A complainant, a departmental inquiry had found the complainant to be 
,F 
guilty. Under such circumstances, the fact of the accused persons having 
~ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.