Yogesh Keshwani v. State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.

In the case of Sethuraman (supra), the Apex Court has held as hereunder:-

5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were 2 interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent- accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e. one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set-aside. The appeals are allowed.

8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the law cited hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present C482 application deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated order dated 23.03.2022, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.548 of 2019, Pramila Oberoi vs. State & another, is hereby quashed.