Delhi District Court
Nitin Jain vs Padmini Impex Private Ltd on 19 April, 2025
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 60/2025
UNIQUE CASE ID NO.:- DLWT01-002069-2025
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Nitin Jain
S/o Sh. Bharosi Lal Jain,
R/o G-17, Shrikrishna Colony,
Haiderganj, Mama Ka Bazar,
Gwalior, M.P. .... Revisionist
VERSUS
M/s Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
34, Transport Centre,
Punjabi Bagh Chowk,
Rohtak Road, Delhi-110035 .... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 06/03/2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 17/04/2025
Date of judgment : 19/04/2025
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:51:55 -
0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.1 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") (Section 438 & 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) filed by the revisionist against the order dated 07/01/2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Ankit Solanki, Ld. JMFC (NI Act), Digital Court-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2665/2021 u/s. 138 N.I. Act, titled as 'M/s Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain' thereby, application u/s 145(2) NI Act of the revisionist/accused for recalling of complainant for cross-examination was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to set-aside the impugned order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to allow the application u/s. 145(2) NI Act and to permit the accused for examination of the complainant.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:52:05 -0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.2 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionist has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, thereby, the application u/s 145(2) NI Act of the revisionist/accused for recalling of complainant for cross-
examination was dismissed. Ld. Trial Court had wrongly dismissed the aforesaid application without application of mind.
Somewhere in the month of May, 2020, complainant company had contacted the accused for the purpose of selling its kitchen products and thereafter, in June, 2020 distributorship was handed over to the accused, however, for the purpose of securing the amount of kitchen products, which were to be supplied by the complainant company, blank signed cheque in question was given by the accused as security to the complainant company.
Continuously defective kitchen products were supplied by the complainant company to the accused and then, the distributorship was kept in abeyance and no further order was placed by the accused and at that relevant time, the debit balance of the accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:11 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.3 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
upon the complainant company was Rs. 2,23,604/- and he prayed to the complainant company that defective materials be taken back but complainant company with an oblique motive not taken back the defective materials and subsequently, filed the present complaint u/s 138 of NI Act against the accused. Accused had instituted a commercial suit no. 23/2024 against the complainant in the Court of Ld. Commercial Court, Gwalior for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,03,477/- with respect to damaged kitchen products supplied by the complainant. Matter was first time fixed for cross-examination of the complainant on 08/08/2022 before the Ld. Trial Court but on 08/08/2022, counsel for the accused had appeared but he was tested covid positive and the matter was adjourned for 18/11/2022. On 18/11/2022, counsel for the accused did not appear for the reasons best known to him and no information to this effect was communicated to the accused by him and the accused remained under impression that his counsel would appear before the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter, the case was fixed for 21/03/2023 for cross-examination of the complainant and again on the said date, counsel did not appear and right of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:16 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.4 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
accused to cross-examine the complainant was closed by the Ld. Trial Court. Thereafter, an application was filed by the accused and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15/05/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court holding that there is no provision to recall its own order by the Court. Thereafter, on 13/11/2024, accused had filed an application u/s 145(2) NI Act for examination of the complainant and the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07/01/2025. Security cheque was only issued by the accused and entrusted to the complainant as security and not given in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. Accused had repeatedly asked the complainant to collect the damaged kitchen products and to settle the account and to return the security cheque entrusted to him but the complainant refused the same on the one pretext or another. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that on the date of presentation of the said security cheque, there was no recoverable liability against the accused. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the malafide intent, fraudulent and dishonest act of the complainant. Complainant has deliberately not disclosed the entire facts and real and genuine dispute between the parties.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:52:20 -
0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.5 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
3. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Impugned order has been passed mechanically and without due application of mind and against the settled position of law that the defence of the accused must be given due consideration. An opportunity has to be granted to the accused to cross-examine the complainant, which is a valuable right and the same cannot be extinguished due to any default committed on the part of the counsel. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider several triable issues in the application u/s 145(2) NI Act, which can only be decided after giving the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the complainant. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the complainant in support of its complaint has filed evidence by way of affidavit but the contents of the affidavit and genuineness of the documents remained unrebutted and untouched on account of struck-off the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant. No prejudice would be caused to the parties if the application u/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed and the accused was permitted to cross-examine the complainant. Ld. Trial Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:25 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.6 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Court has failed to consider that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands and concealed the entire facts. No other or similar petition has been filed by the revisionist or is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or any other Court.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the maintainability of the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
(a) Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.
{(1977) 4 SCC 137}
(b) Kalyani Baskar V. M.S. Sampornam Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:30 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.7 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
{(2007) 50 AIC 381}
(c) Dhirender Sharma V. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. {Crl. M.C.. 3665/2018 & Crl. M.A. 28516/2018 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28/01/2020}
(d) Sunil Agarawal V. Sunil Gupta & Anr. {Crl.
M.C. 6061/2019, 6065/2019, Crl. M.A. No. 41285/2019 & 21297/2019 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 11/12/2019}
(e) Siddharth Chandra V. State of NCT & Anr.
{Crl. M.C. 4006/2016 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28/08/2018}
(f) Jagdeep Singh V. Ramesh Singh {(2020) 1 Cri CC 2}
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"07.01.2025 Proceedings conducted through video conferencing via Cisco Webex App. Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant alongwith the AR.
Ld. Counsel for the accused through VC.
Accused in person. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:52:35 -0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.8 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
An application u/s 145 (2) NI Act has been filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused seeking to recall the complainant as a witness and to cross-examine him.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the previous counsel did not inform about the court date to the accused and therefore he was unable to attend the court. Consequently, the right of the accused to cross- examine the complainant was closed on 21.03.2023. Ld. Counsel for the accused has cited a judgment namely Jagdeep Singh Vs. Ramesh Singh CRMMO No.215 of 2019 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he is willing to cross-examine the complainant subject to cost also.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application stating that the conduct of the accused is not worthy of allowing the application.
Several opportunities have been granted to the accused to cross-examine the complainant and therefore the application be dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also stated that application u/s 145 (2) NI Act had already been allowed on 27.05.2022 and subsequent application under the same provision can not be entertained.
Heard. Perused. Considered.
Section 145 (2) NI Act states that "the Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein".
This court is of the considered Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:40 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.9 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
opinion that Section 145 (2) NI Act nowhere gives the power to the court to recall its order.
Upon perusal of the record, it has been apprised that Section 145 (2) application was allowed on oral request of Ld. Counsel for the accused and an opportunity was granted to the accused to cross-examine the complainant. Thereafter, several opportunities have been granted to the accused to cross-examine the complainant on 08.08.2022 and 18.11.2022. On 21.03.2023, the right of the accused to cross-
examine the complainant was closed and the matter was proceeded for recording of SA. Statement of accused was recorded on 15.05.2024 and the matter was listed for DE.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has now moved the abovesaid application, which in the humble opinion of this court can not be entertained at this stage.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
One last and final opportunity is granted to the accused to lead DE, else the right shall stand closed.
Put up for DE on 03.02.2025.
Accused is directed to remain physically present in the room no.207, Extension Block, THC, on 03.02.2025. Counsel for complainant, counsel for accused and accused are also directed to remain physically present in Room No.207, Extension Block, THC, for defence evidence.
ANKIT SOLANKI JMFC (NI ACT), DIGITAL COURT-01/WEST/ THC/Delhi/07.01.2025"
Digitally signed by VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:46 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.10 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 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.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:52:53 -0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.11 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
7. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:52:58 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.12 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
8. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"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-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19
16:53:02 -
0100
CR No. 60/2025 Page No.13 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:07 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.14 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
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 be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order.
In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:12 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.15 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. V. Fazru" {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:
"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:16 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.16 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub- section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:20 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.17 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory.
There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, butDigitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:25 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.18 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... 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 (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:30 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.19 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v.
Uttam). The feasible test is whether by 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."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:35 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.20 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Neelam Mahajan and Anr. V. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:40 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.21 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide impugned order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s 145(2) NI Act of the revisionist/accused for recalling of complainant for cross-
examination was dismissed.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, on the oral request of counsel for the accused, application u/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed vide order dated 27/05/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Thereafter, opportunities were given to the accused to cross-examine the complainant but the accused/counsel had not cross-examined the complainant and vide order dated 21/03/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, right of the accused Digitally to signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:45 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.22 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
cross-examine the complainant was closed. Thereafter, the accused had filed an application for recalling of order dated 21/03/2023 and the same was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 15/05/2024. Thereafter, the accused/revisionist had filed the application u/s 145(2) NI Act for recalling of complainant for cross-examination and the aforesaid application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07/01/2025.
It is admitted fact that the revisionist has not challenged the orders dated 21/03/2023 and 15/05/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Application u/s 145(2) NI Act of the accused/revisionist, which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07/01/2025, was for recalling of the complainant for cross-examination. Since, at the oral request of counsel for the accused, application u/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed vide order dated 27/05/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, there was no occasion for the accused to file the another application u/s 145(2) NI Act with the same prayer on 13/11/2024, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07/01/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Hence, technically the aforesaid second application Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:50 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.23 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
u/s 145(2) NI Act falls u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
Summoning and examination of witness is governed by the Section 311 Cr.P.C. Section 311 Cr.P.C. talks about summoning, examination, recalling and re-examination of the witness.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sethuraman V. Rajamanickam" { (2009) 5 SCC 153 } that:-
"Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent- accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e. one on the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:54 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.24 of 27 Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."
In view of the law laid down in Sethuraman case (Supra), it is clear that order on the application for recalling of the complainant for cross-examination is an interlocutory order.
10. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner. It is also well settled law that question/ issue of maintainability of the criminal revision can be examined by the Court at any stage.
On perusal of impugned order, it is clear that same is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:53:59 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.25 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
neither final nor intermediate but the same is purely an interlocutory order. The impugned order cannot said to be a final or intermediate order in any manner. If the impugned order is set aside, then there would be no culmination of the proceedings.
11. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist to show that criminal revision is maintainable against the order on the application for recalling of witness for cross-examination.
12. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and law laid down in Amar Nath, V.C. Shukla, Poonam Chand Jain, Girish Kumar Suneja, Neelam Mahajan and Sethuraman cases (supra), this Court is held that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is purely an interlocutory order and being interlocutory order, the impugned order is not amenable to the revisional Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 16:54:04 -0100 CR No. 60/2025 Page No.26 of 27
Nitin Jain Vs. M/s. Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd.
jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed, being not maintainable. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.19 Announced in the open Court 16:54:08 -0100
on 19/04/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 60/2025 Page No.27 of 27