Delhi District Court
Dr Anupama Chakravarti vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 April, 2026
Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 111/2026
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-002257-2026
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Dr. Anupama Chakravarti
W/o Sh. Aakash Deep Chakravarti
R/o House No. FD-3, Shivaji Enclave,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
(through Public Prosecutor
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi)
2. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o H.No. K-34, Ghodewala Mandir,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27
18:00:53
+0530
CR No. 111/2026 Page No.1 of 18
Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
3. Kailash
S/o Sh. Kishan
R/o H.No. K-156, JJ Colony,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 18/02/2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 27/04/2026
Date of judgment : 27/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 439 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS ') filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11/09/2024 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Alka Singh, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court-03), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 601/2020 u/s. 354/323/506/509/341/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. ".
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to call the Trial Court Record and to set-aside the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court and to restore the order dated 17/11/2023 closing cross-examination Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:00:59 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.2 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
of PW-1.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that by way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. of accused persons for recalling of complainant for cross-examination was allowed. Revisionist is a Gynaecologist in Khetrapal Hospital, Rajouri Garden. On 16/09/2020, while attending a critically ill patient namely Sangeeta, who was suffering from severe postpartum hemorrhage, the accused persons, being relatives of the patient, willfully obstructed, verbally abused, physically assaulted and outraged the modesty of the revisionist. Thereafter, FIR was got registered against the accused persons and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed on 18/03/2023. Revisionist/PW-1 was examined-in-chief on 04/07/2023. Revisionist/PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite number of opportunities. Vide order dated 17/11/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1 was closed. After about ten months, accused filed an application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. for re-call of revisionist for cross-examination and vide impugned order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the aforesaid application was allowed. Impugned order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to the revisionist to oppose the application. Impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27 18:01:04 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.3 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
governing re-call of witnesses. Repeated summoning of the revisionist for cross- examination after about ten months causes significant prejudice and professional hardship. Revisionist has not filed any other case/ appeal or petition to challenge the impugned order in any other Court of law.
3. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Impugned order is liable to be set-aside as same is misuse of section 311 Cr.P.C. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the revisionist had been diligently pursuing the matter and had complied the directions issued by the Court time to time. On 17/11/2023, closure of cross-examination was conscious, reasoned and lawful judicial order passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Impugned order granting re-call of witness is contrary to the settled legal principles governing the exercise of powers u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. Application filed by the accused for re-call of witness neither constitute legally sufficient ground nor exceptional or compelling circumstances warranting interference. Impugned order over-looked the settled principles of law. Impugned order is contrary to the mandate of expeditious and time bound trial. By directing re-opening of evidence after an inordinate lapse of about ten months, Ld. Trial Court has occasioned unwarranted delay in the progress of the trial. Impugned order has caused grave prejudice and undue professional hardship to the revisionist. Impugned order is legally unsustainable Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27
18:01:09
+0530
CR No. 111/2026 Page No.4 of 18
Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
as it failed to record any exceptional, compelling or specifically reasons justifying the re-call of witness. In the present case, impugned order neither demonstrate nor reflect any indispensability or necessity for re-opening of cross- examination of the revisionist. Impugned order is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and prejudicial and same is liable to be set-aside.
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:-
1. Madhu Limaye V. The State of Maharashtra {AIR 1978 SC 47}
2. Honnaiah T.H. V. State of Karnataka & Ors. {Criminal Appeal No. 1147/2022, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 04/08/2022}
3. Adham Rowther V. Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime {1997 CRI LJ 529} Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:13 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.5 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
4. B.B. Lal Aggarwal V. The State Govt. of Delhi & Anr. {2022 (2) JCC 1399}
5. Phool Chand & Anr. V. State of Delhi & Ors. {Crl. Rev. P. 643/2009, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24/01/2011}
6. R.P. Bali & Anr. V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) {Crl. Rev. P. 154/2018, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26/02/2018}
7. Jitender Kumar V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. {Crl. Rev. P. 177/2019, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24/02/2020}
8. Narinder Singh V. State {Crl. Rev. P. 336/2020, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21/10/2020}
9. Ritesh Kumar Murti V. State (GNCT of Delhi) {2016 (2) JCC 1317}
10. Harminder Singh Anand V. Harcharan Singh {2023 (3) JCC 2055 (Delhi)}
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"11.09.2024 Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Both accused with Ld. Counsel Sh. Zia Afroz.
PW-5 Dr. Irshad Hussain is examined-in-chief, cross-examined and discharged.
The Counsel has pressed his application filed Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:18 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.6 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
u/s 311 Cr.PC for cross-examining the complainant.
Heard. Considered.
Since, the opportunity of the accused to cross- examine the complainant was closed, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to him for the said purpose subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the complainant and it is also made clear only one opportunity shall be granted to the accused and no adjournment for cross-examining the complainant shall be granted.
PW Complainant be summoned along with case property, if any through IO/SHO concerned for the NDOH.
Put up for cross-examination of complainant u/s 311 Cr.PC on 16.10.2024.
(ALKA SINGH) JMFC (Mahila Court-03) West, THC, Delhi/11.09.2024 "
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 438 BNSS (Section 397 of Cr.P.C.) is reproduced as under:-
Section 438:- 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:24 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.7 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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 439.
(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.
7. The wording of Section 438 BNSS is verbatim the same as of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
A plain reading of Section 438 BNSS (Section 397 of Cr.P.C.). makes it manifest that Section 438 (1) BNSS 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 438 (2) BNSS mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 438 BNSS shall not be exercised in relation to any Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:29 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.8 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 438 (2) BNSS to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 438 (2) BNSS 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 interlocutory order is maintainable under section 438 (1) BNSS in view of the express bar imposed under section 438 (2) BNSS.
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:35 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.9 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27 18:01:40 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.10 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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 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 order;
(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 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27
18:01:45
+0530
CR No. 111/2026 Page No.11 of 18
Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
as "Poonam Chand Jain & 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 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:01:49 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.12 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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, but 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2026.04.27 18:01:53 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.13 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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 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, 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." Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27 18:01:57 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.14 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Neelam Mahajan & 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, 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 11/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide impugned order dated 11/09/2024, application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. of the accused for re-calling the complainant for cross-examination was disposed of and complainant was summoned for her cross-examination.
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.
Now, this Court shall discuss the legal aspect in respect of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.27 18:02:01 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.15 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
maintainability of the present revision petition and has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
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 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 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order.
10. On perusal of impugned order, it is clear that the same is neither Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27 18:02:06 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.16 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
final nor intermediate but the same is purely an interlocutory order. Impugned order cannot said to be final or intermediate order in any manner. If the impugned order is set-aside, then there would be no culmination of the proceedings. Hence, present revision petition of the revisionist is not maintainable against the impugned order, as the same is an interlocutory order.
11. Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions has relied upon number of case laws.
In case law titled as B.B. Lal Aggarwal case (supra) relied upon by counsel for the revisionist, it was held that no revision petition is maintainable against the order on the application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C.
There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in other 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 other case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist to show that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and revision petition is maintainable against the order on the application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C.
12. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws referred by this Court, 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 jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed, being Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2026.04.27 18:02:10 +0530 CR No. 111/2026 Page No.17 of 18 Dr. Anupama Chakravarti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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 SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.27
18:02:15
+0530
Announced in the open Court
on 27/04/2026 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 111/2026 Page No.18 of 18