- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8042 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. LOKESH KUMAR GOYAL S/O JEEVAN RAM GOYAL, PROPRIETOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, M/S SAI STEEL SUPPLIERS, 5TH CROSS, OPP VST TILLERS, MAHADEVAPURA, WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE-560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHITNIS P R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SHO, COD POLICE, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY GOVT PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING ANNEX, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO-035, (ADDITIONAL), INDIRANAGAR B.D.A. COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 51st ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.RP.NO.159/2018 DATED 27.08.2018 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the trial Court rejecting his prayer for discharge and Sessions Court rejecting the Revision Petition filed by him on the ground of maintainability. He has sought for remand. 2. During the course of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner sought for remanding the case to the Sessions Court to decide the Criminal Revision Petition filed by him on merits. 3. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Sessions Court is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, facts and evidence on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 record and liable to be set aside. It has erred in dismissing the petition as not maintainable without deciding the matter on merit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, rejection of application seeking discharge is not an interlocutory order and therefore is maintainable. When the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, the same was challenged before the Sessions Court, the Revision Petition is perfectly maintainable before the Sessions Court and it ought to have decided it on merit rather than dismissing the same as not maintainable. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the Sessions Court is not sustainable and hence the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. Petitioner/accused is the Proprietor of M/s Sai Steel Suppliers. A case came to be registered against him - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 by the COD police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is alleged that from April to June 2011, accused purchased iron from six dealers, but failed to pay taxes in a sum of ₹67,91,477/- with regard to the turnover of ₹4,61,52,247/- in respect of the business done with M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd. and thereby cheated the Government. However, M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd filed O.S.No.5891/2013 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-30) Bengaluru. In the said suit, the trial Court gave a finding that plaintiff i.e, M/s Radhakrishna Alloys Private Ltd has not committed any omission and the Proceedings dated 15.12.2012 and Notice dated 26.09.2012 issued by defendant are illegal and the endorsement dated 15.07.2013 issued by defendant is void. In the light of the same, accused is entitled for discharge and hence the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 7. The trial Court rejected application filed by accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 8. Against the said order, accused approached the Session Court in Crl.R.P.No.159/2018. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said petition on the ground that it is arising out of an interlocutory order and as per Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C, the revision petition against a interlocutory order is not maintainable. 9. This issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in scores of judgments: (i) Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey and others Vs. Uttam (Rajendra Kumar)1 (ii) Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (Madhu Limaye) 2 (iii) V.C. Shukla Vs State Through CBI (V.C.Shukla)3 (iv) Amarnath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (Amarnath)4 1 (1999) 3 SCC 134 2 (1977) 4 SCC 551 3 1980 SUPP SC 92 4 (1977) 4 SCC 137 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 (v) K.M.Mathew Vs. The State of Kerala (K.M.Mathew)5 (vi) Honnaiah T.H Vs State of Karnataka and Ors (Honnaiah T.H).6 10. In Amarnath, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term interlocutory order "…This being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and, therefore, the bar under sub-Section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi- final and, therefore, the revisionsl jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same…..". 11. In Honnaiah T.H, referred to supra, at para- 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that explaining the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, this Court observed in Amarnath (supra) that the wide power of revision of the High Court is restricted as a 5 (1992) 1 SSC 217 6 2022 SSC Online SC 1001 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 matter of prudence, and not as a matter of law, to an order that "suffered from any error of law or any legal infirmity causing injustice or prejudice to the accused or was manifestly foolish or perverse". It extracted para-11 of Amarnath "It is now well-nigh Settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not, as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage. The feasibility test is whether upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so, any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable". - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 12. In Crl.P.No.7209/2018 c/w Crl.P.No.7208/2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has extracted para-15 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.(Sanjay Kumar Rai)7 as under: "15. The correct position of law laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. That apart, this Court in the above-cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of inidivdual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law." 7 AIR 2021 SC 2351 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 13. Thus, so far as the present case is concerned, if the application filed by accused seeking discharge would be allowed, then the entire proceedings would be terminated. Therefore, though the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by accused seeking discharge was at an interlocutory stage, it is not an interlocutory order and therefore revision is maintainable. However, the Sessions Court committed error in holding that it is an interlocutory order and therefore revision is not maintainable. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside and matter requires remand to the Sessions Court to decide the revision on merit. 14. In the result, the petition succeeds and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25660 CRL.P No. 8042 of 2018 (ii) The impugned order dated 27.08.2018 in Crl.RP.No.159/2018 on the file of LI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Court with a direction to decide the Criminal Revision Petition on merits. (iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 28.07.2025 and proceed with the matter without seeking unnecessary adjournments. (v) The trial Court shall dispose of the matter within 15 days there from. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16