Delhi District Court
Inder Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 May, 2018
Page 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE 04, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No.79/2018
Inder Singh
S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
R/o 753/11, Baba Farid Puri,
Patel Nagar, New Delhi
............Revisionist
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi
........Respondent
Date of Filing : 28.02.2018
Date of Arguments : 11.05.2018
Date of Order : 14.05.2018
Criminal Revision Petition U/Sec.397/399 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.02.2018 passed in criminal case bearing FIR No.53/18 O R D E R
1. This revision petition has been filed by revisionist against the impugned order dated 02.02.2018 passed by Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate05, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, vide which the revisionist was remanded to J.C. for 14 days.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present petition are as follows: CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 2 of 8 That on 31.01.2018 an FIR No.53/18 U/Sec.387/506/34 IPC P.S. Anand Parbat was registered against the revisionist on the complaint of complainant Bijendra Singh Man wherein allegations of extortion were levelled against the revisionist. On 02.02.2018, the revisionist was produced before the Court of Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Ld. MM05, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi after arresting the revisionist in the aforesaid FIR. An application for seeking 2 days' P.C. Remand of revisionist was filed by the I.O. before the Ld. MM by submitting that the revisionist became violent and assaulted Ct. Praveen when the police officials went to his house to investigate in FIR No.53/18. But the said application was dismissed by the Ld. MM by stating that the revisionist was already in the custody of police for 24 hours and there was sufficient time for the custodial interrogation of the revisionist. Thereafter, an application was filed by I.O. for seeking 14 days' J.C. Remand and on the said application, the revisionist was remanded to J.C. for 14 days by the Ld. MM vide order dated 02.02.2018. The said order has been challenged by the revisionist in the present revision petition.
3. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist/accused for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2018 on the following main CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 3 of 8 grounds:
(i) That the arrest of the revisionist, without service of notice upon him, was considered valid by the Ld. MM.
(ii) That the arrest of the revisionist U/Sec.186/353/355/332 IPC on the basis of incident dated 01.02.2018, without registration of FIR, was illegal.
(iii) That the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the alleged incident of assault by revisionist upon Ct. Praveen was of 10.00 a.m. at the house of revisionist, but MLC of revisionist and said Ct. Praveen was prepared at 10.25 p.m.
(iv) That the revisionist could have been released on his furnishing bail bond.
4. Notice of the present revision petition was given to the respondent/state and the revision petition has been contested by the state.
5. I have heard the arguments from revisionist and Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Addl. P.P. for respondent/State and carefully perused the record including the Trial Court record in the light of submissions made CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 4 of 8 before me.
6. The revisionist/accused has vehemently argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is not legal whereas the Addl.P.P. for respondent/State has argued that the said order has been passed after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and there is no need to interfere in the same. The Addl.P.P. has further submitted that the impugned order is interlocutory and hence revision petition is not maintainable.
7. In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed for following reliefs:
(i) The revisionist be supplied with the copy of documents filed before the Court of Ld. MM Sh. Abhishek Kumar on 02.02.2018.
(ii) The arrest of revisionist U/Sec.186/353/355/332 IPC without registration of FIR under the said Sections be declared invalid.
(iii) That the police be directed to file Action Taken Report/Charge sheet within certain time on the complaints filed by revisionist against Bijendra Singh and others.
CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 5 of 8
(iv) Clarification be sought from hospital regarding preparation of second MLC dated 02.02.2018 without any request letter.
(v) That an inquiry be made regarding the documents produced before the Ld. MM by the police and for keeping the revisionist in illegal custody beyond 24 hours.
(vi) To conduct inquiry regarding the action taken against public servants in CC No.'Not Known' U/Sec.295/296 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.
8. So far as the prayers mentioned in para no.(iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) are concerned, the same are beyond the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and hence declined. So far as the prayer mentioned in para no.(ii) is concerned, the submission of the revisionist is not correct that his arrest by the Ld. MM U/Sec.186/353/355/332 IPC was declared valid without registration of FIR under the said Sections. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. MM, in second para of page no.2 of his order, has specifically mentioned as follows "Whatever had happened at the house of accused in which certain police officials were assaulted becomes separate cause of action." On perusal of record, it is revealed that the revisionist was sent to J.C. by the Ld. MM in FIR No.53/18 which CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 6 of 8 was already registered U/Sec.387/506/34 IPC against the revisionist. Since, the Ld. MM, in the impugned order, has nowhere validated the arrest of the revisionist U/Sec.186/353/355/332 IPC, so, the prayer (ii) is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
9. So far as the prayer no.(i) regarding setting aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2018, vide which the revisionist was sent to Judicial Remand for 14 days is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable. Ordinarily and generally, the expression 'interlocutory order' has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term 'final order'. An interlocutory order is one which is passed during the progress of action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure is termed "interlocutory". An interlocutory order, even though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. In other words, if the decision will finally dispose of the matter in dispute, it is final whereas if the decision will CR No.79/2018 Inder Singh Vs. State Page 7 of 8 allow the action to go on, then it is not final but interlocutory. In State of U.P. Vs. Atiq Ahmad, 2001(sup) A.Cr.C. 257 the Hon'ble High Court held that the remand order will not culminate in the proceedings and even if it may be an illegal order but on the basis of the illegal order, the proceedings cannot be culminated and as such the remand order is not a final rather an interlocutory order, against which revision is not maintainable.
10. It has been held in Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P., 1995 Cri.L.J. 646 also as follows:
"Whether there is accusation pending against any person or he is under trial for any offence the remand orders in such cases would be interlocutory in nature which are not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as those orders will not affect the accusation or charge pending against him. He can claim release by means of a habeas corpus petition or a writ petition proving his detention or custody as illegal."
11. It has been held in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P., 1995 Cri.L.J. 556 as follows:
CR No.79/2018
Inder Singh Vs. State Page 8 of 8 "Orders granting remand do not stand at any higher footing than the orders refusing bail and are interlocutory in nature and Section 397(2) specifically bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders."
12. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid caselaws that the impugned order is also an interlocutory order and the revision against the said order is barred by the provision of Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order.
14. File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 14.05.2018) (Navita Kumari Bagha)
ASJ04, West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
CR No.79/2018
Inder Singh Vs. State