The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gaurav Raheja v. State of Punjab and another held that a judicial order refusing permission to travel abroad would qualify as an "interlocutory order" and thus, revision against the same is barred under Section 397(2) of CrPC. It was strongly contested before the Court that Section 397(2) read with Section 401 of the Code, there is a specific bar to the exercise of revisional power against an interlocutory order.
Therefore to erase any doubts in the minds of the parties, the Court found it necessary to answer the question as to whether a particular order is an ‘interlocutory order’. In the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus M/s Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others (2001) 7 SCC 401 and K.K. Patel and another Versus State of Gujarat and another (2000)6 SCC 195 in which the top court had held that 'interlocutory order' denotes the order of a purely interim or temporary nature, which does not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. In other words, an interlocutory order is one which does not finally culminate the criminal proceedings.
The Court in furtherance of this observed that “When tested on this anvil, the impugned order whereby application for permission to travel abroad has been declined, would qualify as an interlocutory order and fall within the ambit of Section 397(2) of the Code. As revision against such an order is barred, an aggrieved person has no other remedy, but to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Ergo, instant petition is held to be maintainable.”
After perusing the case history, it was noted by the Hon’ble Bench that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was permitted to travel to Australia and he returned to India within the time extended by this Court. This Court, therefore, has no doubt about the bonafide of the petitioner.