Delhi District Court
World Scrap Recycling Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Jatin Singhal Prop Of Singhal ... on 30 November, 2023
World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.: 210/2023
UNIQUE CASE ID NO.: DLWT010031162023
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. WORLD SCRAP RECYCLING SOLUTION PVT. LTD.
No.1, Golden Stars Apartments,
Thandalam to Peransakkam Road,
55, Thandalam Village, Sriperumbudur (TK),
Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu 602105
2nd Address: Renugunta Industrial Estate,
Shed No. 10, 11, 12 and 50
Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh517507
2. BASKARAN KUMAR
3. PADMAVATHI KUMAR
4. SUSHIL CHOUBEY
(Respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 are Directors of
WORLD SCRAP RECYCLING SOLUTION PVT. LTD.)
No.1, Golden Stars Apartments, Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30
16:48:33
+0530
CR No. 210/2023 Page No.1 of 21
World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal
Thandalam to Peransakkam Road,
55, Thandalam Village, Sriperumbudur (TK),
Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu602105
2nd Address: Renugunta Industrial Estate,
Shed No. 10, 11, 12 and 50
Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh517507 .... Revisionists
VERSUS
JATIN SINGHAL
Proprietor of Singhal Enterprises,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Singhal,
R/o A114, Khasra No. 1416, Shardapuri,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi110015. .... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 13/04/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 21/11/2023
Date of judgment : 30/11/2023
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30
16:48:41
+0530
CR No. 210/2023 Page No.2 of 21
World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal
section 397/ 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionists against the order dated 20/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Vivek Beniwal, Ld. MM (NI Act), Digital Court01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CC No. 2119/2021, titled as "Jatin Singhal Vs. World Scrap Recycling Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors."
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to summon the record of the Ld. Trial Court, to quash the impugned order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, to drop/close the proceedings under Section 138 N.I Act against the revisionists and to discharge the accused persons/revisionists in the said case.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionists have filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 20/01/2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court. The respondent/complainant had filed the complaint case u/s. 138 N.I Act against the revisionists/accused persons and the revisionists/accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:48:48 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.3 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal persons were summoned vide order dated 27/09/2022 for 20/01/2023. On 20/01/2023, counsel for the accused no.1 & 2 submitted a document to the email of the Ld. Trial Court in respect of payment slip dated 23/02/2022 from the account of the accused company into the account of firm of the complainant/respondent for Rs.26,60,000/ which is the entire cheque amount in the present complaint case pending before the Ld. Trial Court and the matter is now fixed for verification of said payment for 27/05/2023. Ld. Trial Court inspite of being informed of said payment and filing online proof/receipt of entire cheque amount, had issued NBWs against the accused no. 3 & 4 for 27/05/2023. Application for cancellation of NBWs has been filed before the Ld. Trial Court. NBWs against accused no. 3 & 4 have been issued by the Ld. Trial Court in an illegal manner.
Revisionist no.3 is a senior citizen lady and suffering from old aged ailments and she has been wrongly summoned by the Ld. Trial Court as she is neither the signatory of the cheque in question nor concerned with the accused no. 1 company in its day to day affairs being sleeping Director. Accused no. 4 has also been wrongly summoned by the Ld. Trial Court as he is neither the signatory of the cheque in question nor Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2023.11.30 16:48:55 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.4 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal had knowledge about the issuance of cheque in question. No summons have been served upon the revisionists/accused no. 3 & 4. Accused no. 2 had informed the accused no. 3 & 4 that entire payment qua the cheque in question had already been made on 23/02/2022 into the account of firm of the complainant. Nonappearance of the revisionist/accused no. 3 & 4 was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the genuine reasons.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. Grounds of revision Ld. Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as NBWs were issued against the accused no. 3 & 4 despite the fact that the entire payment of the cheque in question was made to the complainant much prior to filing of PF. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "M/s Meters and Instruments Vs. Kanchan Mehta", proceedings are required to be closed and accused persons are required to be discharged in case of payment made to the complainant. Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order without applying judicious mind and current facts brought on Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30 16:49:02 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.5 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal record. Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order without following the prescribed procedure and the settled law. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is not within the cannons of law and same is liable to be setaside. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate and analyze the facts and circumstances of the case in judicious manner. Complainant has played fraud not only with the revisionists but also with the judicial system by filing PF for summoning the accused persons inspite of the fact that the entire cheque amount payment has been made into the account of the firm of the complainant.
4. This Court already heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists 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. Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR
VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2023.11.30 16:49:09 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.6 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the present revision petition is not maintainable as impugned order is an interlocutory order and the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under: "20.01.2023 Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing on Cisco Webex application through the permanent Cisco Webex VC Room ID https://districtcourtdelhi.webex.com/meet/niwest0001. Present: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal and Ms. Pooja Anand, Ld. Counsels for the accused no. 1 and 2.
Accused no.1 is company.
Accused no.2 present.
Accused no. 3 and 4 absent.
Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 and 2 states that accused no.2 has made entire payment to the complainant in respect of cheque in question.
Issue NBW against the accused no. 3 and 4 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:49:15 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.7 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal through concerned SHO, on filing of PF within 7 days, to secure the presence of accused no. 3 and 4 before the court, returnable on next date of hearing.
Listed for payment verification on 27.05.2023.
VIVEK BENIWAL MM (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT01/WEST/ THC DELHI/20.01.2023"
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 subsection Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:49:24 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.8 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by subsection (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. 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 subsection (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 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30 16:49:43 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.9 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal (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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30
16:49:51
+0530
CR No. 210/2023 Page No.10 of 21
World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 subsection (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of wellknown 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:00 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.11 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:08 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.12 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:14 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.13 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 laiddown 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 subsection (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 subsection (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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:20 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.14 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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, 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.11.30 16:50:26 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.15 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 wellnigh 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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:34 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.16 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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."
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:42 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.17 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal 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 revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby NBWs were issued against the accused No.3 and 4.
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 "Virkaran Awasthy Vs. State of NCT of Delhi", (Crl. M.C. 2229/2017 decided on 01/11/2017) that order of issuance of NBWs Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 16:50:50 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.18 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal and dismissal of application for cancellation of NBWs are interlocutory order.
It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as " Hiralal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. ", {2008 Crl. L.J. 113} that: " So far as the impugned order dated 24/28102003 issuing nonbailable warrants against the accused persons named in the chargesheet is concerned, revision against that order is not maintainable, because the order issuing nonbailable warrant comes in the category "interlocutory order" within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. This Court in the case of Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P. 2000 (40) ACC 901, has held that issuing of non bailable warrant is purely interlocutory order, revision against which is not maintainable."
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.Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30
16:50:57
+0530
CR No. 210/2023 Page No.19 of 21
World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal
In view of the law laid down in Virkaran Awasthy and Hiralal cases (Supra), it is clear that impugned order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is an interlocutory order.
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.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby NBWs were issued against the accused No.3 and 4 for 27/05/2023. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 06/03/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, on the application for cancellation of NBWs, NBWs against the accused No.3 and 4 were cancelled. In view of the same, the present revision petition has become infructuous.
11. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and law laid down in Amar Nath, V.C. Shukla, Poonam Chand Jain, Girish Kumar Suneja, Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.11.30 16:51:04 +0530 CR No. 210/2023 Page No.20 of 21 World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal Neelam Mahajan, Virkaran Awasthy and Hiralal 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. Even otherwise, NBWs against the accused No.3 and 4 have already been cancelled vide order dated 06/03/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and in view of the same, the present revision petition of the revisionists has also become infructuous. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionists 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 SHANKAR VIJAY Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date:
2023.11.30 on 30/11/2023 16:51:12 +0530 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 210/2023 Page No.21 of 21