1. What is Interlocutory Order?
The expression “interlocutory order” denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of parties. Hence, any order which substantially affects the right(s) of the parties cannot be said to be an “interlocutory order”.
2. Section 397 of CrPC
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation. - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
3. Supreme Court Judgments
3.1 Ripen Kumar vs Deptt of Customs (2000)
In Ripen Kumar vs Deptt of Customs (2000), the Supreme Court of India held-
Admittedly, the orders which are passed as a step in aid of the pending proceedings, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be "interlocutory order" so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction. It is a well settled principle of law that right to prosecute carries with it the right to produce evidence in support of the charge and consequently if the right to produce evidence is denied wholly or in part that would certainly amount to adjudication of a right. Therefore, it would necessarily follows that when an order closing the pre-charge evidence is made, it is not merely an interlocutory order but creates a vested right in the accused to ask for his discharge.
3.2 Amarnath & Others vs State of Haryana & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 137
In Amarnath & Others vs State of Haryana & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 137, the Supreme Court held-
The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance which has been used in various statutes. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. The term "interlocutory order" in s. 397(2) has, been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad and artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this provision in s. 397 of the Code. For instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under s. 397(2) of the Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory orders so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
3.3 K.K. Patel & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 195
In K.K. Patel & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 195, the Supreme Court held-
"An order which, though passed at intermediate stage of an enquiry, trial or other proceeding, would be a final order, if it decides the controversy in the case wholly or in part or finally determines any right or claim of any party to such enquiry, trial or any other proceeding. Now, the right to prosecute carries with it the right to produce evidence in support of the charge and consequently, if the right to produce the evidence is denied wholly or in part that would certainly amount to adjudication of a right. It necessarily follows that an order closing the evidence wholly or in part is final order and not merely an interlocutory order."