Order Framing Charge Is Revisable, but the Sessions Court Is the Proper First Forum: Rajasthan High Court

FIR No. 818/2010 was registered at a Sikar district police station, and the investigation ended in a negative final report in 2010 itself; cognizance was later taken against the petitioners (para 8). On 17.09.2024 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Neem Ka Thana, framed charges under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (para 2). The petitioners challenged the FIR and the charge order in the High Court (para 2). They said the alleged incident dated back to 1989, the report came 21 years later, and the dispute was civil (para 3). Relying on Asian Resurfacing, they also contended that a charge order is interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (para 5).

On whether a charge order is interlocutory (para 1), the Court read Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI as holding that such an order is neither purely interlocutory nor final and may be challenged under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227, though only in exceptional cases (para 9). Following Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it held that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are "neither interlocutory nor final in nature", so a Section 397 revision is maintainable (paras 10-11). On the proper forum (para 12), Section 397 gives the High Court and the Sessions Court concurrent revisional powers (paras 13-14). Citing Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal, the Court said revisional power is discretionary and creates no right in the litigant (para 15). Following Natwar Lal v. State, it held that where two forums are available, propriety requires the lower forum first, except in rare and special circumstances (paras 16-17). A revision in the High Court is maintainable, but entertaining it is discretionary (para 18). The petitioners gave no special or exceptional reason for bypassing the Sessions Court (paras 16, 18-19).