Revision against an interlocutory order in a Section 133 CrPC proceeding is barred under Section 397(2).

The petitioner filed a complaint with the Circle Officer alleging that Opposite Party (O.P.) No. 2 was obstructing a public path (Gair Mazarua land)

Based on an inquiry report confirming the obstruction, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), Gogari, initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and passed an order on 13.03.2018 directing the removal of the obstruction

Crucially, this order fixed a future date (25.04.2018) for further proceedings, indicating it was not a final disposal

O.P. No. 2 challenged this order via a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Khagaria, who set aside the S.D.M.'s order on 04.05.2019 on the grounds that evidence under Section 138 Cr.P.C. had not been recorded

The petitioner then moved the High Court to quash the Sessions Judge's revisional order.

1. Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an interim/interlocutory order passed by a Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which expressly bars the exercise of revisional powers in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], specifically "Principle No. 6," which mandates that inherent or extraordinary powers should be exercised to quash proceedings where there is an express legal bar (such as Section 397(2)) to the institution or continuance of such proceedings

The High Court examined the nature of the S.D.M.’s order dated 13.03.2018. It observed that because the S.D.M. had fixed a subsequent date for hearing and had not finally concluded the matter, the order was "interim in nature" and fell within the definition of an interlocutory order

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the Sessions Judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against such an order due to the statutory prohibition in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

The Court determined that the Sessions Judge’s act of setting aside the S.D.M.'s order was "bad in the eyes of law" because it ignored the express legal bar against revising interlocutory orders

The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order of the Sessions Judge, Khagaria, dated 04.05.2019. The parties were granted liberty to rejoin the pending proceedings in Case No. 781(M)/2017 before the S.D.M., Gogari