Delhi District Court
Karan Raheja vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 4 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF HEM RAJ ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR NO.DLWT01-007468-2022
Criminal Revision No. 228/2022
Karan Raheja vs The State (GNCT of Delhi)
In the matter of :
Karan Raheja
S/o Late Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o Flat no.302, Sai Brundavanam,
Shreshta Estate, Sapthagiri Colony,
Sainikpuri, Hyderabad,
Telangana-500094
Permanent Resident of
QU-218-C, Pitampura
New Delhi - 110034 ..... Revisionist
Versus
The State of (GNCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Instituted on : 03.08.2022
Reserved on : 27.10.2022
Pronounced on : 04.11.2022
ORDER
1. The present order intends to dispose of the criminal revi- sion petition filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 1/10 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the Ld CMM (West) was pleased to dismiss the application of the revisionist seeking the modification in the bail order dated 12.01.2021 to the effect that the accused be directed to report before the Ilaka SHO, Hy- derbad, Telangana on 15 day of every month and he has to share his live location with the IO on the ground that since the FSL re- port has not been filed and there was apprehension that the ac- cused may flee or abscond and evade the process of law.
2. In the present revision petition the main prayers of the re- visionist are reproduced herein as under:
b) Set-aside the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Kapil Kumar, Ld. CMM (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
c) Pass an order to do away with the condition of physical appearance on 15th day of every month or modify the same to the extent that applicant/accused can mark his presence through VC with sharing of Live Location with the IO at New Delhi in the present FIR.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present re- vision petition are that the revisionist came to be admitted on regular bail by Ld. ASJ-01 (West), Delhi vide order dated 12.02.2020 on certain conditions. One of the conditions imposed was that the revisionist would report to the SHO, PS EOW/IO on first and 15th of every month and get his presence marked there.
Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 2/10Thereafter the revisionist filed an application seeking modifica- tion of the said bail condition. Vide its order dated 12.01.2021, Ld. ASJ-03 (West), modified the said condition to the effect that the revisionist henceforth, instead of marking his presence be- fore SHO EOW would report to SHO, Ilaka Police Station at Hyderabad, Telengana on the 15th day of every month.
4. Thereafter the revisionist moved an application before the Ld CMM (West) praying that the condition directing him to mark his presence before the Ilaka Police Station to be done away with. The said application came to be dismissed vide im- pugned order dated 30.05.2022 of Ld. CMM (West), THC, Delhi.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has argued that Ld. CMM (West), THC, Delhi has erred in observing since the FSL report was still awaited, there was every likelihood with the revisionist may flee away or absconded himself. He has further argued that FSL report may take long time and the revisionist has nothing to do with the said report. He further argued that the revisionist has been regularly appearing in the Trial Court. He further argued that the passport of the revisionist is already lying with the po- lice. Further, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed. He has further argued that the revi- sionist is a permanent resident of Delhi and because of the lan- guage barrier at Telangana, he is not comfortable in marking his presence before the concerned Ilaka Magistrate. He has further argued that the child of the revisionist is suffering from the seri- ous ailments and for the sake of humanity, this condition may be Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 3/10 done away. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has further argued that surety of the revisionist is his wife only and there is no likelihood that he would leave or flee away from the process of law.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Substitute Addl. Public Prosecutor has straightway challenged the maintainability of the revision petition submitting that the modified order dated 30.05.2022 is not maintainable. He has argued that the proper legal course for the revisionist would have been to apply modification of the bail order under section 439 Cr. P. C. He strongly opposed the present revision petition.
7. Section 397 CrPC provides power to High Court or a Ses- sions Court to look into the correctness, illegality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of any inferior criminal court and pass any order as it deemed fit in the circumstances of the case of the nature as mentioned in the section.
8. In the judgment of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhat- tisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C observed as under:
"10. ....................... Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdic- tion for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any find- ing, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 4/10 facts and evidence of the case to reverse those find- ings."
9. In the judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the re- visional power of the court in great length. The relevant observa- tions are reproduced as under:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an in- ferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or or- der made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accor- dance with law. If one looks into the various judg- ments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions un- der challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbi- trarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."
"13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revi- sional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very lim- ited one and cannot be exercised in a routine man- ner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injus- tice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 5/10 it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its re- visional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceed- ings under the CrPC."
******************************************** ***** "20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the ex- pression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the juris- diction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of ju- risdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial dis- cretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives any- thing to anyone, it also gives all those things with- out which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused."
10. Similarly in the judgment of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123, it was ob- served as under:
"14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not lim-Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 6/10
iting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consid- eration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an ap- peal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glar- ingly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction." ( Emphasis supplied)
11. I have gone through the records of the case, the order passed by learned trial court and heard both sides.
12. The first question which arises that whether the impugned order is revisable or not. It is well settled principle of law that the Cr.P.C does not define as to what is an interlocutory order.
13. The interlocutory order has been defined in judgment of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 the relevant para is reproduced herein under:
Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 7/10"6. ................The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. 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. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the 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 particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, 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 Section 397(2) of the 1973 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 order so as to Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 8/10 be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
14. By way of the present revision petition, the revisionist is seeking the modification of bail order dated 12.01.2021. In my opinion, the said order is not revisable. The Ld. CMM did not have the jurisdiction to modify the bail order passed by a Ses- sions Court. The bail conditions could only be modified by the Sessions Court only. It is well settled principle of law that a Magistrate cannot modify the bail condition wherein the bail has been granted by the a Court of Sessions. Since the Ld. CMM did not have any jurisdiction to modify the bail condition, therefore, in my considered opinion, the Ld. CMM did not commit any il- legality in dismissing the application of the revisionist seeking the modification of the bail condition. The proper course would have been to file an application for the modification of bail or- der before the Sessions Court. The revisionist earlier has filed such application which was allowed and the bail condition was modified. For the reasons best known to the revisionist, he pre- ferred to file the application before the Ld. CMM who did not have the jurisdiction for the same. Furthermore, in view of the judgment Amar Nath (supra) the said order is clearly an inter- locutory order.
15. Furthermore, in light of the aforesaid pronouncements wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of revisional court, I am of the opinion that there is no defect or an error of jurisdiction or law in the order of the Ld. CMM. The or-
Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 9/10der of the Ld. CMM was neither perverse nor unreasonable. Hence, the said order of the Ld. CMM was legally maintainable.
16. Hence , I do not find any illegality or perversity or jurisdic- tional error in the impugned order dated 30.05.2022. Accord- ingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
17. Trial court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back.
18. The file of the present revision petition be consigned to record room.
HEM Digitally signed
by HEM RAJ
Date:
RAJ 2022.11.04
16:21:36 +0530
Pronounced in the open
Court on 04.11.2022 (Hem Raj)
Additional Sessions Judge -08
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 228/2022 Karan Raheja vs State of NCT of Delhi. Page 10/10