“The question of custody of the accused is a matter of substantial right and the law is settled that any order which substantially decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to bar the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2)”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Odisha HC in the writ appeal case of Adm Commandant v. State of Odisha and others, [CRLMC No.1507 of 2020], chaired by Justice B.P. Routray the bench in this present case dismissed the CRLMC, thereby disposing off the case and consequently the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Opposite party No.3, Soumya Ranjan Pati is presently serving in the Indian army as a Major married opposite party No.2, namely, Tejesmita Mohapatra in the year 2013. The wife relying u/s 498-A/323/326/307/ 406/506/34/120-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, filed an FIR against party no. 3 and others in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S.Case No.58 dated 7.10.2020. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar allowing the said prayer of the petitioner directed for handing over of military custody of opposite party No.3. Then, opposite party No.2 filed the revision case before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda challenging said order of the learned S.D.J.M. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order set aside the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The petitioner, who is officiating as Adm Commandant, For Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Bhubaneswar has challenged the impugned order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Criminal Revision No.74 of 2020 by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the hon’ble HC observed that, “So far as the objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of revision application before the learned Sessions Judge… , the revision is maintainable. It is for the reason that, the question of custody of the accused is a matter of substantial right and the law is settled that any order which substantially decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to bar the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2).”
In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case dismissed the CRLMC and Directed the petitioner to produce opposite party No.3 on any suitable date to be fixed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order, and consequently the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
