Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumar Meena vs State on 10 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST) , DELHI.
Criminal Rev. No. 140/18
1. Manoj Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh
92A, Param Hans Colony
Murlipura
Jaipur
Rajasthan Revisionist
Versus
State Respondent
Date of Institution : 25.04.2018
Date of Assignment to this court : 26.04.2018
Date of Arguments : 03.05.2018
Date of Judgment/orders : 10.05.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present revision has been preferred U/S 397/399 Cr.P.C against the order dated 31.03.2018 (hereinafter called the 'impugned order) as passed by Ld. MM-01/West Distt./Delhi, (hereinafter called the Ld. Trial Court). Vide impugned order the application of the revisionist for cancellation of NBW was dismissed and process U/s 82 Cr.PC. was initiated.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons involved in the present FIR, in connivance with each other, have allured the complainant to purchase certain properties and accordingly were able to play fraud upon the complainant Cr. Rev. No. 140/18 Manoj Kumar Meena Vs State Page 1 of 4 by selling about 12 properties at different places but the sale deeds of those 12 properties, on inquiry, were found to be forged and sale papers as well as stamp papers were also found to be forged. It is alleged in the complaint that about Rs. 30 Crores have been obtained from the complainant in fraudulent manner by cheating the complainant.
3. Here, in the present revision petition the revisionist has alleged that he has moved an application for cancellation of process initiated against him as he was not named in the FIR. It is also stated in the revision petition that there is no material against the revisionist and custodial interrogation is not required. It is also stated that the revisionist is neither the beneficiary nor cheated any amount from the complainant and he came to know regarding the issuance of NBW against him on 26.03.2018 when he visited Chidawa Rajasthan. It is submitted that non appearance of the revisionist was neither willful nor deliberate but due to the reason that he was never informed about any process. It is submitted that the process issued against the revisionist is arbitrary and his application has been dismissed arbitrarily without going into the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer has been made accordingly to set aside the impugned order.
4. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the facts correctly and dismissed the application of the revisionist being moved by the revisionist for cancellation of process initiated against him Cr. Rev. No. 140/18 Manoj Kumar Meena Vs State Page 2 of 4 and issued U/s 82 Cr.PC.
5. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of State by Ld. Addl.PP for State that in the present case the order being alleged by the revisionist is an interlocutory order because the investigation against the revisionist is still pending and he is not joining the investigation. It is submitted that if the impugned order is set aside by this Court it will amount to grant of anticipatory bail to the revisionist.
6. It is also submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for State that revisionist has filed an anticipatory bail application which is listed for 21.05.2018 in the Court of Ld. ASJ Sh. Bhupesh Kumar. His oral submission is taken on record.
7. Having given consideration to the submissions being made by the Counsel for revisionist and Ld. Addl.PP for State and on perusal of revision petition it reveals that the revisionist has nowhere whispered in the entire revision petition which illegality has been committed by the Ld. Trial Court. All the grounds which have been mentioned in the revision petition are the grounds which pretends that the revisionist is seeking bail. On the other hand, it has been settled by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that " the term interlocutory order in section 397 (2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad artistic sense. It merely denotes order of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or 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". Emphasis supplied upon the case titled as Cr. Rev. No. 140/18 Manoj Kumar Meena Vs State Page 3 of 4 "Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana & Others 1977 AIR 2185, 1978 SCR (1) 222."
8. Here in the present case on perusal of file it reveals that chargesheet against the revisionist has yet to be filed. The allegations against the revisionist are at the stage of investigation. The revisionist is not joining the investigation. Hence the coercive process was issued against the revisionist. The process issued by Ld. Trial Court is aimed to secure the progression of the investigation and such order falls within the category of interlocutory order U/s 397 (2) Cr.PC. The impugned order does not decide the rights of the revisionist finally because the revisionist has the remedy to anticipatory bail, if he is entitled for anticipatory bail. Even otherwise it has been brought to my notice that the revisionist has already filed an anticipatory bail which is pending for adjudication.
9. So, I find no infirmity or illegality in the oder of Ld. Trial Court.
10. So, In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court with TCR.
12. Revision records be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed by JAGDISH JAGDISH KUMAR
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Date: 2018.05.11
16:09:56 +0530
COURT ON THIS 10.05.2018
(JAGDISH KUMAR )
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02
(WEST):DELHI
Cr. Rev. No. 140/18 Manoj Kumar Meena Vs State Page 4 of 4