Delhi District Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State on 4 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-015899-2023
CR No. 595/2023
Gurpreet Singh
S/o. Sh. Charan Jeet Singh
R/o. H. No. 136, Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi.
...... Revisionist
Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)
Through SHO, PS Burari, Delhi.
...... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 04.11.2023
Date on which order reserved : 04.11.2023
Date on which order pronounced : 04.11.2023
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed u/s.
397/399 Cr. PC. against the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 of the ld. Trial Court vide which the application for earlier disposal of the application for releasing the vehicle on superdari has been dismissed by the ld. Trial Court.
CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 1 of 72. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was arrested on 08.07.2023 in FIR No. 869/2023, U/s. 307/325/341/506/34 IPC and his car bearing no. DL 1C AA 8472 (Model Creta Hyundai) was also taken into custody by the IO. On 17.10.2023, the revisionist was released on regular bail by the Court of Ld. ASJ, Central, THC, Delhi and thereafter, one application was filed on 20.10.2023 before the ld. MM for release of the vehicle on superdari which was listed for hearing on 30.10.2023. On 30.10.2023, the ld.MM adjourned the matter for 18.11.2023 on the ground that main charge-sheet was summoned by the Court of ld. ASJ in a bail matter. Thereafter, the revisionist filed another application on 31.10.2023 for early disposal of the superdari application but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2023.
3. Assailing the impugned order, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the vehicle is no more required for investigation but despite this fact, the Court of the ld. MM adjourned the superdari application for a long date of 18.11.2023 unnecessarily. It is also contended that the father of the revisionist is suffering from various ailments for which he has to go to the doctor for routine checkup and the family of the revisionist requires the vehicle for the same. It is prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. This Court has heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for revisionist and has perused the judicial record.
CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 2 of 75. The very first question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order is interlocutory or not.
6. It is important to refer Section 397 Cr. P.C. which provides for the power of the revision to the High Court or the Sessions Court to examine the record of any inferior criminal Court and to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding or order passed by the said Court.
Section 397 Cr. P.C. reads as follows :
"(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."
CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 3 of 77. From the bare perusal of Section 397 (2) Cr. P.C., it is amply clear that the exercise of power of revision is barred qua an interlocutory order.
8. The interlocutory order is the one which does not finally decide the dispute between the parties. If the order has the impact on the finality of the dispute between the parties, the same is not interlocutory and is revisable in nature.
9. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the test for deciding whether the order is interlocutory or not. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below :
"8. The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this: if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage."
10. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 laid down the following test:
"An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 4 of 7 interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2)."
11. This was upheld by the four-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.C. Shukla vs. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962.
12. The above position was reiterated in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134. Again in K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Apex Court stated thus:
"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 [(1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585], Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 : AIR 1978 SC 47], V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI [1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : AIR 1980 SC 962] and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam [(1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393] ). 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."
13. In Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corpn.
Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1990) 3 SCC 588 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:
"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 CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 5 of 7 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 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."
14. In the light of above legal position, this Court shall now examine whether the impugned order is in the nature interlocutory or not. The impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the ld. Trial Court simply dismisses the application for early disposal of superdari application. The impugned order in no way culminates the proceedings between the parties nor does it decide important rights and liabilities of the parties. The impugned order appears to be purely interim/ interlocutory in nature. Resultantly, the revision is barred against the impugned order being hit by Section 397 (2) Cr. P.C.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court for information and necessary action.
CR No. 595/2023 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 6 of 717. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
SUSHIL Digitally signed
by SUSHIL ANUJ
ANUJ TYAGI
Announced in the open TYAGI
Date: 2023.11.06
15:41:37 +0530
Court on 04th November, 2023
(SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI)
ASJ-04/CENTRAL/DELHI
04.11.2023(VR)
CR No. 595/2023
Gurpreet Singh Vs. State Page No. 7 of 7