Delhi District Court
Ameen Khan vs Atar Ur Rehman on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-012214-2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 427/2025
AMEEN KHAN,
S/o. Mr. Fahmeed Khan,
R/o. 975, First & Second Floors,
Chandni Mahal, Bazar Chitli Qabar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006. ...REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
ATAR-UR-REHMAN,
S/o. Mr. Rafiq-Ur-Rehman,
R/o. 1347, Banwala Phatak,
Bazar Chitli Qabar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006. ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 13.08.2025
Date of institution : 14.08.2025
Date when judgment was reserved : 30.08.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 17.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438/440 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 11.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Reliever)/Ld. JMFC (Reliever), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. JMFC'), in case bearing; 'Ata-Ur-Rehman v. Ameen Khan, Ct. Case No. 3641/2018', being a complaint case/complaint proceedings in terms of the provisions under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'). Pertinently, by virtue of CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 1 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:24:34 +0530 the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court, dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking recalling of the respondent/complainant for cross-examination.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings before this Court is a complaint, filed by/on behalf of respondent in terms of the provisions under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 138/142 of the NI Act before the Ld. Trial Court, inter alia asserting that the respondent and the revisionist were acquainted with each other, being residents of the same locality. Correspondingly, the respondent asserted under its said complaint that the revisionist approached him in the month of October, 2016, seeking/requesting for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), on the premise that the revisionist desired to purchase a printing machine. Consequently, as per the respondent, based on the persistent requests/allurements of the revisionist, the respondent is proclaimed to have issued the said loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the revisionist, inter alia with an assurance of return of the said amount within a period of six months from the issuance of the loan amount. Markedly, it is further chronicled under the complaint that the revisionist failed to pay the loan amount to the respondent despite passage of time and repeated requests from the respondent. However, considering the persistent demand from the respondent, the revisionist is proclaimed to have issued a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), bearing no. 564798, dated 26.12.2017, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chawri bazar, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the 'cheque in question/dishonoured cheque'), in favour of the respondent, in the month of October, 2017. As per the respondent's case, as enunciated under the complaint, he was assured by the revisionist that the said cheque would be honored CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 2 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:24:37 +0530 on its presentation. However, when the cheque in question was presented for encashment by the respondent with its banker, same is asserted to have returned vide cheque return memo dated 02.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'return memo/cheque return memo') under the remarks, 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'.
Ergo, under such circumstances, it is proclaimed that the respondent issued a legal notice/legal demand notice dated 05.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'demand notice') to the revisionist, in terms of the provisions under Section 138 NI Act, seeking payment of the cheque amount, however, the revisionist is asserted to have not obliged, despite such entreaty. Consequently, under said facts and circumstances, the instant complaint came to be filed by/at the behest of the respondent against the revisionist, before the Ld. Trial Court.
2.1. Relevantly, upon such complaint being filed and upon pre-summoning evidence having been tendered by the respondent, Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 16.03.2018, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the revisionist. Subsequently, on the revisionist's entering appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, notice in terms of the provisions under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the revisionist on 08.10.2018, for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, to which the revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, the Ld. Trial Court proceeded with the recording of evidence on behalf of the respondent. However, during the course of trial proceedings, considering the persistent delay on the part of the revisionist to cross examine the respondent, the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 22.01.2020, closed the revisionist's said right/right to cross- examine the respondent inter alia under the following observations;
CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 3 of 19
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17
15:24:43
+0530
"...Matter is at the stage of cross-examination of complainant.
It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused is willingly not appearing before the Court, just to delay the present proceedings. Perusal of the record reveals that matter is at the stage of cross-examination of complainant since 08.10.2018 and on each and every date accused has sought adjournment on one pretext or another and today neither the accused nor his counsel has appeared to cross-examine the witness. It appears that accused is not interested to cross-examine the witness and his only intention is to delay the proceedings deliberately and harass the complainant.
Considering the above, right to cross-examine the complainant stands closed. Accordingly, CE stands closed. It appears that coercive steps are necessary for securing the presence of the accused. Let NBWs be issued against the accused.
Notice under section 446 Cr.P.C. be also issued to the surety, if any.
Put up for appearance/statement of
accused/further proceedings on..."
(Emphasis supplied)
2.2. Subsequently, the revisionist moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 07.01.2022 inter alia under the following observations;
"...Matter is at the stage of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Perusal of record reveals that an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the accused, is pending disposal. Vide previous order, one last and final opportunity was granted to the accused to pursue the present application. Despite the same, there is no appearance on behalf of the accused today. Reader of the court submits that NBW issued against the accused in compliance of previous order has been received back unexecuted with the report 'accused out of station'.
Accordingly, the said application stands dismissed.
Put up for SA u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on ..."
(Emphasis supplied) CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 4 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:24:47 +0530 2.3. Undeterred, the revisionist moved another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to recall the respondent on 31.05.2025. However, the said application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2025/impugned order, as under;
"...The matter is pending arguments on application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he will not file any reply to application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused and will orally argue on the same. Arguments on application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. heard on behalf of both parties.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused was misled by his previous counsel and hence, the complainant was not cross-examined. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that accused be allowed to cross examine the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of the court to a previous order dated 07.01.2022 wherein previous application u/s. 311 CrPC filed on behalf of accused has already been dismissed.
In view of the same and considering that this court does not have power to review its own order. The application stands dismissed.
Put up for DE/furnishing surety bond on..."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving the same to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and that no sound and/or cogent reasons have been delineated under the said order. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:24:52 +0530 a mechanical manner and utter haste, without considering the material placed on record as well as without appreciating the correct facts and circumstances brought forth on record. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court did not even hear the arguments addressed on behalf of the revisionist and passed the order in an extreme hurry, to the prejudice of the revisionist. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that while passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that technicality cannot come in way of justice and principles of natural justice, which ought to be followed in all proceedings. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the revisionist on the basis of technical reasons, overlooking the impact of the same on the rights of the revisionist to cross-examine the respondent. Ld. Counsel further reiterated that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a casual manner, without appreciating that in case opportunity to cross examine the respondent/complainant is not granted to the revisionist/accused, irreparable harm, loss and injury would accrue upon the revisionist. As per the Ld. Counsel, the revisionist has only one option/remedy to defend its case by way of cross-examination of respondent and in the absence of any such right/denial of such right to the revisionist, grave prejudice and irreparable injury would accrue to the revisionist. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist was assiduously contesting/defending its case before the Ld. Trial Court and had no intention to delay the said proceedings and the omission, if any, accrued due to the act of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. Without prejudice to the same, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the settled law that a party should not be CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 6 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:24:57 +0530 penalized/made to suffer on the account of mistakes/lacunae on part of his Counsel.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist has already suffered a huge embarrassment/loss, owing to a false case, initiated by the respondent and in case, the impugned order is not set aside, serious repercussions would ensue to the revisionist. Ld. Counsel further reiterated that the case of the respondent is false, vexatious and based on concealment of real and material facts by the respondent. Therefore, it was submitted that cross examination of the respondent is necessary to elicit/bring the entire truth on record, which would also assist the Ld. Trial Court to decide the case judiciously and dismiss the respondent's false and frivolous complaint. Ld. Counsel reiterated that the non-conducting of cross-examination by/on behalf of the revisionist was neither intentional nor deliberate, rather for the reasons beyond the control of revisionist and in case, the present petition is allowed and one opportunity/date is granted to the revisionist to cross examine the respondent, entire truth of the present case would be revealed before the Ld. Trial Court, which would facilitate the ends of justice. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist entreated that the present petition be allowed, and the impugned order be set aside. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decision in Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137 and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist have been heard as well as the case record(s), including the records of the Ld. Trial Court have been thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 7 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:02 +0530 outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular that under Section 438 BNSS1, as under;
"438. 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 his own bond or bail 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 439.
(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...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 1 Pari materia provision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Cr.P.C. provides, "397. Calling for records to exercise of 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 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..." (Emphasis supplied) CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 8 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:07 +0530 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Comparably, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 9 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.17 15:25:11 +0530 revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Clearly, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court(s) is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Concomitantly, another inherent inhibition/embargo to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of Courts is envisaged under Sub-Section (2) of Section 438 BNSS/Section 397 Cr.P.C., which bars the maintainability of revision against 'interlocutory order', objective behind the said provision being to avoid delay in enquiry and/or 2 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 10 of 19
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17
15:25:16
+0530
trial. Pertinently, the meaning of words/expression, 'interlocutory order(s)' has been persistently avowed in various decisions of Courts, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reference is outrightly made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (Supra.), wherein the Hon'ble Court remarked as under:
"6. ...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. 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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, while elucidating the words 'interlocutory order', noted as under:
CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 11 of 19Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:20 +0530 "11. That apart, the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that no revision was maintainable on account of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. 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] , V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI [1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : (1980) 2 SCR 380] 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Relevantly, to comprehensively deal with the issue in hand it is further apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while appreciating the distinction between; final, intermediate and interlocutory order as well as elucidating the connotation of 'intermediate order(s)', inter alia, observed as under;
16. 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.
*** *** ***
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 12 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:23 +0530 Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] 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 intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Evidently, in conspectus of the above, it is observed that the orders which may be passed by a criminal court may be categorized as; final order(s), intermediate order(s) and interlocutory order(s). Quite understandably, final orders are those that finally adjudicate the rights of parties, such as orders/judgments of acquittal or conviction. In contradistinction, intermediate orders are the ones which, when reversed, have an effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in final order(s). Correspondingly, interlocutory orders, neither finally adjudicate the rights of parties nor have an effect of terminating/culminating proceedings when the objections raised by a party(ies) are upheld.
14. Apropos the present discourse, reference is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153 at this stage, wherein the Hon'ble Court unambiguously declared that the orders passed on CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 13 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:28 +0530 application(s) filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature, in the following terms;
"...Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside..."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Mahima Management Services (P) Ltd. v. Creative Property Developers (P) Ltd., CRR No. 2481/2018, dated 01.02.2024: 2024 SCC Online Cal. 939, reiterated in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"20. Perused the materials on record; also perused the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate. I have also perused the application filed by the present petitioner before the Learned Magistrate u/s 311 Cr.P.C. along with the connected Bank statements sought be introduced/filed in the present petition of complainant. The case of complaint is initiated u/s 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act alleging the commission of offence by the present Ops on the ground stated therein. The Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence and proceeded to heard the matter. The list of witnesses and list of document had already been filed before the Learned CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 14 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:31 +0530 Magistrate at the time of filing of the complaint case. Trial has already been initiated. The examination in chief of the PW 1 has been concluded. Now the dates are fixed for cross-examination of PW 1. At this stage, the petitioner intends to introduce some more documents. The Learned Magistrate is of view that the prayer of the petitioner in the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. contained a prayer of introduction of the computerised bank statement and "other documents".
The "other documents" were not specifically explained by the present petitioner before the Learned Magistrate. However it is the only purpose of the petitioner to substantiate the fact that the how the loan amount was received by the OPs through their bankers. However, from entire merits of the case if does not appear that any point of time the OPs have ever disputes about the delivery of the cheques. More over it is true that the order of rejection of an application u/s 311 Cr.PC is truly an interlocutory order. According to the provision of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. of a criminal revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order..."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Clearly, it is seen from above that the superior courts have persistently held that the order of dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is interlocutory in nature, against which criminal revision petition/revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In as much as Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that since the impugned order affects the right of revisionist to cross examine the respondent, same ought to be treated as final order on the said aspect, this Court unambiguously observed that in case every order, which determines some/an issue is treated as intermediate or final order, same would result in opening floodgates of litigation and protracting trial, which menace was sought to be curtailed with the insertion of sub-Section (2) under Section 438 BNSS/Section 397 Cr.P.C. Relevant in this regard, to further make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam Mahajan v. State, 2016 SCC Online Del. 2281, when the Hon'ble Court, whilst CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 15 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:36 +0530 being confronted with an akin/similar issue, inter alia, declared as under;
"16. The main question arises for consideration is whether the order passed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order or not? In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
*** *** ***
18. Applying these tests to the impugned order, this Court finds that the order permitting the re- examination of the petitioners is purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the proceedings but the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. Furthermore, it is impossible to spell out the concept of an interlocutory order unless it is understood in contradistinction to or in contrast with a final order.
*** *** ***
20. After perusing the impugned order as well as the material placed before this court and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court is also of the opinion that every interlocutory order merely because it disposes of an aspect, nay a vital aspect in the course of a pending proceeding even adversely affecting a party for the time being would not be something other than interlocutory."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Consequently, wary of the principles noted herein, this Court deems it appropriate to now consider the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in the present factual scenario. As aforenoted, vide impugned order/order dated 11.07.2025, the revisionist's application under Section 311 CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 16 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:39 +0530 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Clearly, the said order/impugned order does not have the effect of terminating the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, hence, is understandably not 'final' in nature. Further, in case, the arguments addressed/objections raised by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are conceded to/upheld and the impugned order is consequently reversed, same would also not have effect of terminating the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, bringing the impugned orders outside the purview and ambit of 'intermediate order(s)'. As a corollary, the impugned order is nothing other than an 'interlocutory order', against which no revision would be maintainable, making the present petition liable to be outrightly dismissed in view of bar envisioned under the provisions under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C and the aforenoted judicial dictates, i.e., in particularly, in view of the decisions in; Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (Supra.); Mahima Management Services (P) Ltd. v. Creative Property Developers (P) Ltd., (Supra.) and Neelam Mahajan v. State (Supra.).
18. Notably, another significant aspect, worthy of mention in the instant case that the present revision petition is that from a conscientious perusal of the records of the Ld. Trial Court, it is noted that the revisionist has been delaying the proceedings in the complaint case on one or the other pretext. As aforenoted, after framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, matter was listed for cross examination of the respondent on 09.04.2019, on which date, request for exemption was moved on behalf of the revisionist, whereupon the matter was adjourned for the said purpose for 09.09.2019. However, even on 09.09.2019 and on subsequent dates, i.e., on 01.11.2019 and 22.01.2020, since the revisionist failed to cross examine the respondent, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to close, revisionist's CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 17 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:43 +0530 right to cross examine the respondent on 22.01.2020. Subsequently, as aforenoted, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to recall the respondent was moved by the revisionist on 06.03.2020. However, despite such application being listed for arguments, the revisionist failed to address arguments on his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 20.08.2020, 15.10.2020, 28.01.2021, 16.08.2021, 05.10.2021 and 07.01.2022, leading to the Ld. Trial Court, dismissing the said application on 07.01.2022. Subsequently, on 22.03.2022, 16.04.2022 and 30.05.2022, the revisionist failed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court, leading to initiation of coercive action against the revisionist by the Ld. Trial Court. Thereafter, on 30.09.2022, fresh vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the revisionist. However, again on 29.11.2022, 01.02.2023, 02.05.2023, 28.08.2023, 18.01.2024, 29.05.2024, 14.10.2024, and 24.03.2025, neither the revisionist entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, nor was he represented, in the meanwhile, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. ensued against him/the revisionist. In fact, it was only on 09.04.2025, the revisionist finally entered appearance, seeking recall of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court. However, soon thereafter, the revisionist moved the instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 31.05.2025 before the Ld. Trial Court, which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, as aforenoted, vide impugned order. Clearly, it is seen from above that the conduct of the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court has been extremely lackadaisical and dilatory, delaying the proceedings repeatedly on one of the other pretexts.
In fact, as aforenoted, the revisionist opted not to enter appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, leading to the initiation of coercive steps against him. However, undeterred, the instant petition was CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 18 of 19 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.17 15:25:47 +0530 filed by the revisionist, in the considered opinion of this Court, in pursuance to his/revisionist's persistent protractive exercise, to delay adjudication before the Ld. Trial Court.
19. Consequently, in conspectus of above and in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC (Reliever), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case bearing; 'Ata-Ur- Rehman v. Ameen Khan, Ct. Case No. 3641/2018', dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is interlocutory in nature and not subject to the scrutiny of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed as not maintainable, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), by the revisionist to DLSA, Central, Tis Hazari Court, being cognizant of persistent dilatory tactics adopted by the revisionist. Apposite, at this stage to further note that, though, this Court holds highest regard for the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, the same would not be of any assistance to the revisionist, in the manner as sought to be relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
20. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
21. Revision file be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. ABHISHEK signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.17 15:25:53 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 17.09.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 427/2025 Ameen Khan v. Atar-Ur-Rehman Page 19 of 19