Delhi District Court
Chola Ms General Insurance Co Ltd vs State on 11 July, 2024
Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 238/2024
UNIQUE CASE ID NO.:- DLWT01-004360-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Through its AR Sh. Gurvinder Singh)
having its office at:-
2nd Floor, Samayak Tower,
Pusa Road, New Delhi .... Revisionist
VERSUS
State .... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 15/05/2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 09/07/2024
Date of judgment : 11/07/2024
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11
16:05:03
+0530
CR No. 238/2024 Page No.1 of 22
Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionist against the order dated 24/04/2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Shashank Nandan Bhatt, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in FIR No. 023388/2023 PS Rajouri Garden, thereby the application u/s 451 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist for release of vehicle bearing No. DL-10-CV-1158 was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to set-aside the impugned order dated 24/04/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the application u/s 451 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist for release of vehicle bearing No. DL-10-CV-1158 was dismissed. Revisionist has also prayed to restore the said miscellaneous application for release of vehicle bearing No. DL-10-CV-1158 make Hyundai Alcazar to the AR of the revisionist/lawful owner for disposal with liberty to sale.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11
16:05:20
+0530
CR No. 238/2024 Page No.2 of 22
Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionist had filed an application u/s 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle bearing No. DL-10-CV-1158 make Hyundai Alcazar, which was stolen from the area of Police Station Rajouri Garden and E-FIR No. 023388/2023 u/s 379 IPC PS Rajouri Garden was got registered. The aforesaid stolen vehicle was recovered and lying in the malkhana of PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in FIR No. 55/2024. IO of the present FIR was duly intimated regarding the recovery of the aforesaid vehicle by the concerned police official. The aforesaid vehicle was insured by the revisionist company. As the untrace report was filed by the investigating officer, the revisionist company had paid the claim amount of Rs.21,80,495/- to the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle namely Pankaj Talwar S/o Ashwani Talwar, R/o H.No. 38, Block No.9, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027. Registered/previous owner of the aforesaid vehicle had surrendered his right and all documents in favour of the revisionist company. Now, revisionist company is the lawful Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:05:30 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.3 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State owner of the aforesaid vehicle. The revisionist company has suffered a loss of Rs.21,80,495/- with respect to the aforesaid vehicle and there is no other way to recover the loss except the sale of the vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle is lying in the malkhana of police station in open area and losing its road worthiness and depreciates its value day by day and vehicle is no more required by the police for further investigation purpose. Vide impugned order dated 24/04/2024, the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application stating that the said vehicle has not been seized in the present case and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to release the said property on interim custody/superdari. The aforesaid vehicle was recovered u/s 411 IPC in Hyderabad in FIR No. 55/2024, PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. It is pertinent to mention here that the stolen vehicle was originally stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri Garden and the same was recovered in Hyderabad. The aforesaid vehicle is the case property of E-FIR No. 023388/2023 PS Rajouri Garden.
It is the duty of the investigating officer to retrieve the aforesaid stolen property and to make sure that the aforesaid stolen Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:05:41 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.4 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State property is returned to the rightful owner as per law.
3. This Court already 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.
4. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 24/04/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under :-
"24.04.2024 Present: Sh. Chetan Mittal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sauraj Ghose, Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:05:50 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.5 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State An application has been moved on behalf of the applicant for releasing the vehicle bearing NO. DL10 CV 1158.
Heard.
Reply filed by the IO has been perused.
A conjoint reading of the averments of the application of the applicant and the reply filed by the IO, reveals that the property in question has been recovered by Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in FIR No 55/24. Pertinently, the said vehicle has not been seized in the present case and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to release the said property on interim custody/superdari.
Accordingly, the present application moved by the applicant u/s 451 Cr.p.c stands dismissed.
Record be tagged with the case file. Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Shashank Nandan Bhatt) MM-02/West/THC/Delhi 24.04.2024"
5. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:06:00 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.6 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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.
6. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:06:08 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.7 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:06:16 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.8 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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.
7. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. 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- 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.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11
16:06:28
+0530
CR No. 238/2024 Page No.9 of 22
Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:06:41 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.10 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 Vs. 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:06:53 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.11 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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. Vs. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:07:02 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.12 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 Vs. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:07:12 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.13 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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, 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.Digitally signed by VIJAY
SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2024.07.11 16:07:21 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.14 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:07:34 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.15 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:07:43 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.16 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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. Vs. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:07:52 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.17 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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."
8. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 24/04/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the application u/s 451 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist for release of vehicle bearing No. DL-10-CV-1158 was dismissed.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali & Ors.", {1986 CRL. L. J. 503} that:-
"In view of the aforesaid criteria an order under Section 451 of the Code must be said to be essentially interlocutory in nature. Section 451 empowers a criminal court to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property produced before it during any inquiry or trial, pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:08:00 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.18 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State purpose of such an order obviously is to preserve the property either as evidence or in order to make a proper order after the case is over. No doubt, Section 451 gives wide discretion to the Court to make orders for proper custody of the property pending trial but it does not confer jurisdiction upon it to investigate and decide the question of title or ownership of the rival claimants to the property. An order under Section 451 is not intended even to decide the right of the parties to pass on the property produced before the Court and it is only intended to ensure proper custody of the property during the pendency of the trial. Of course, the order being discretionary in nature the Court has to exercise the discretion vesting in it judicially keeping in view all the circumstances of the case......."
".......It bears repetition that such an order does not decide anything finally. It is made during the progress of the inquiry or trial for a specific purpose i.e. interim custody of the property produced before the Court. It is a different thing that while doing so the Court may, inter alia, take into consideration as to who is the person prima facie entitled to its possession but that would not mean that any party is entitled to interim custody Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:08:09 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.19 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of the property as of right. If the court does so it is only to facilitate proper exercise of judicial discretion and nothing more.
To sum up, therefore, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to revise the order of the Magistrate in view of the specific bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Rajeev @ Raj Vs. State", {WP (CRL) No. 854/2011, decided on 17/09/2015} that release or refusal to release the vehicle on superdari would only be an interlocutory order and same cannot be revised considering the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
In view of the law laid down in Anisa Begum and Rajeev @ Raj cases (Supra), it is clear that order on release or refusal to release the vehicle on superdari is an interlocutory order.
9. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2024.07.11 16:08:20 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.20 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 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.
10. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and law laid down in Amar Nath, V.C. Shukla, Poonam Chand Jain, Girish Kumar Suneja, Neelam Mahajan, Anisa Begum and Rajeev @ Raj 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.07.11 16:08:29 +0530 CR No. 238/2024 Page No.21 of 22 Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State 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 Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date:
on 11/07/2024 2024.07.11
16:08:35
+0530
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 238/2024 Page No.22 of 22