Delhi District Court
Mr.Paras Tripathi vs State (Ps:Maurya Enclave) on 13 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH PANDEY
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.192/2019
MR.PARAS TRIPATHI
S/o LATE SRI DEV DUTT TRIPATHI
R/oC287, VANDANA VIHAR
NANGLOI, DELHI110041
(OWNER of DL10CG0707)
... REVISIONIST
vs.
1. STATE (PS:MAURYA ENCLAVE)
PITAM PURA, DELHI
2. SARIKA GUPTA
W/o VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
H.No.120, POCKET20, SECTOR24
ROHINI, DELHI110085
... RESPONDENTS
PS: MAURYA ENCLAVE
Date of filing of revision : 04.10.2019
Date on which the judgment : 04.03.2020
was reserved
Date of decision : 13.03.2020
In appearance: Sh.Anjani Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Harvinder Nar, Ld.Addl.P.P. for respondent
No.1/State.
ORDER:
1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC is directed against CR No.192/2019 Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.1 of 6the order dated 24.09.2019 (in short "impugned order") passed by Sh.Anurag Thakur, Ld.MM02, Rohini Courts Delhi, seeking setting aside of the impugned order whereby the superdari application preferred by the revisionist herein was dismissed.
2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that impugned order was passed by ld.MM without considering the documents pertaining to the vehicle owed by him; respondent No.2 has not tendered any documents pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle; order is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures; Ld.MM has not applied judicious mind while passing the impugned order and that the order is erroneous and bad in law and lastly ld.MM has failed to appreciate the settled law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is prayed that the order passed by Ld.MM be set aside for releasing the car bearing No.DL10CG0707 to the revisionist/Paras Tripathi.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 17.12.2019 but ld.Counsel for the respondent No.2 did not appear to address arguments on 04.03.2020 when the matter was reserved for judgment, however, liberty was granted to the parties to file written arguments/authorities, if any, within a week but nothing has been filed.
4. In the reply, it is alleged that the averments made by the revisionist are bundle of lies and supported with forged, fabricated and manipulated documents and does not pertain to the respondent No.2 and she never CR No.192/2019 Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.2 of 6signed any such document and in fact all these documents are manufactured by the petitioner in connivance to the bank officials.
5. She (respondent No.2) submitted that when she came to know that she has been cheated by petitioner while availing the vehicle loan after putting her forged signatures, in connivance with the bank officials, she lodged a complaint dated 16.02.2019 at PS:Netaji Subhash Palace vide DD No.46B. She also sent her complaint to CP, DCP, ACP, DCP Vigilance, Manager HDFC Bank and Manager Axis Bank. She further disclosed that none of the particulars in the loan documents were under her handwriting and that the officials of HDFC Bank never met her post or prior to releasing the alleged Use Car Loan and the order passed by Ld.MM is well balanced and justified.
6. I have heard Sh.Anjani Kumar, Ld.Counsel for the revisionist and Sh.Harvinder Nar, Ld.Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law.
7. At the very outset, Ld.counsel for the revisionist was asked to satisfy the court as to whether revision petition is maintainable against such an order which prima facie appears to the court as interlocutory order. Ld.Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that impugned order is not an interlocutory order as Ld.MM has erred in not releasing the vehicle to the purported owner i.e. revisionist herein whereas the respondent No.2/Smt.Sarika Gupta had sold this vehicle to him.
CR No.192/2019Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.3 of 6Ld.Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Apex Court judgment cited as 'Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.' bearing Civil Appeal No.1427 of 2018 (DOD06.02.2018) but this judgment does not touch upon the question as to whether an order passed on a superdari application is an interlocutory order or not.
8. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that impugned order is an interlocutory order and a revision can not be filed against an interlocutory order.
9. The expression 'interlocutory order' has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Amar Nath & Ors. vs. State of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 2185', wherein it has been laid down that the interlocutory order denotes the order of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights of liabilities of the parties. Any order, which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decide certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar revision against the order.
10. I have come across with certain judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, wherein it has been clarified that a revision petition does not lie against the order of superdari of the case property, it being an interlocutory order, hence not revisable. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali (Delhi), 1986 Crl.LJ 503", after considering the entire gamut of law on the point, laid down as under: CR No.192/2019 Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.4 of 6"An order under Section 451 of the Code with regard to custody and disposal of the property does not decide anything finally. It is made during the progress of the inquiry or trial for a specific purpose i.e. interim custody of the property produced before the court. It is a different thing that while doing so the court may, inter alia, take into consideration, as to who is the person, prima facie, entitled to its possession but that would not mean that any party is entitled to interim custody of the property as of right. If the court does so, it is only to facilitate proper exercise of judicial discretion and nothing more. It is further held that to sum up, therefore, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to revise the order of the Magistrate in view of specific bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code."
11. Again relying upon the same judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Shiv Leasing Co. Vs. State, (Delhi), 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 394", held that subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code provides that 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 proceedings.
12. The order passed by Ld.MM does not substantially affect the rights of revisionist or decide the rights of the parties and, therefore, in my opinion, it is an interlocutory order and this court has no power to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The powers of Hon'ble High Court are vast enough under Section 482 of Cr.PC and Article 226/227 of Constitution of India which can not be exercised by this CR No.192/2019 Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.5 of 6court to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by Ld.MM irrespective of its merits.
13. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, as discussed above, I am of the view that powers of revision vested in this court cannot be exercised to interfere with the order passed by Ld.MM declining to release the vehicle bearing No.DL10CG0707 to the revisionist, vide impugned order.
14. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
15. A copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information and the revision file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by RAM RAM PRAKASH
PRAKASH PANDEY
Date: 2020.03.19
PANDEY 11:15:05 +0530
Announced in the open Court (R.P. Pandey)
today i.e. on 13.03.2020 District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CR No.192/2019
Paras Tripathi v. State & Anr.
Page No.6 of 6