Delhi District Court
Ankit Jain vs Ram Parkash on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 541/2025 OF 2022
DLCT01-014349-2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Ankit Jain,
S/o Late Sh. Ravinder Jain
R/o WZ-89, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52
.......Revisionist
Versus
Ram Prakash
S/o Sh. Bishesar Nath,
R/o B-1396, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 ........Respondent
Instituted on : 20.09.2025
Reserved on : not reserved
Pronounced on : 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant revision petition, revisionist takes exception to the order dated 06.09.2025, passed by Ld. JMFC NI Act ( Digital)-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case bearing CT No. 820/2021, titled as " Ram Prakash Vs Ankit Jain", whereby his application under section 311 Cr.P.C seeking recall of the Respondent / Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 1 of 6 Complainant for cross examination, stood dismissed.
2. Brief facts may be taken note of: A complaint under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as NI Act) came to be filed by complainant/respondent , alleging that revisionist issued a cheque in discharge of his legal liability and despite service of legal notice, failed to pay the cheque amount. On being summoned, the revisionist is facing trial for the said offence before Ld. Trial Court.
3. Vide impugned order dated 06.09.2025, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application of revisionist moved under section 311 Cr.PC ( u/s 348 of BNSS), observing that the complainant i.e. CW-1 was cross- examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the accused and thereafter, discharged on 16.04.2025. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observation of Ld Trial Court is reproduced below:-
" 6. In the present factual matrix, accused has filed an application to recall the complainant CW-1 for further cross- examination. AS per the application, the examination of said witness is necessary to pout questions as to his financial capacity.
7. Perusal of teh record shows that present case is listed for final arguments since last three dates of hearing. The complainant CW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and thereafter, discharged on 16.042025.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged fact that previous counsel has not conducted the case in fair and justifiable manner is not a ground to recall any witness for further cross examination. Moreover, the present application is moved by the accused at a belated stage.
9. thus, in view of the contextual facts and above mentioned discussion, application filed by the accused stands dismissed at this stage."
4. The revisionist is aggrieved with the impugned order and has Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 2 of 6 assailed the same for the reasons that the cross-examination was conducted by previous counsel and later on, accused appointed a new counsel, who after going through the complete case, found out that some very important aspect are still unfolded which surely impact the final outcome of the present case and that the order of Ld. Trial Court not giving opportunity for the same by dismissing the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C is against settled Principles of Law and is liable to be set aside.
5. At the outset, Ld. counsel for revisionist was requested to satisfy about the maintainability of present petition as the impugned order appears to be interlocutory in nature. It was argued that the same is maintainable as per provisions of u/s 397 of Cr.P.C and has relied upon the judgment titled as Sarvesh Mathur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 292 (2022) Delhi Law Times 518.
6. I have perused the available record.
7. The first question to be decided by this Court is whether the present revision petition is maintainable in view of the bar created by provisions of Section 438(2) BNSS(in pari materia with Sec 397 Cr.P.C ). Here, it will be relevant to reproduce relevant portion of Section 438 BNSS which is 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, Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 3 of 6 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.
(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.
8. In the judgment Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Another, (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting "Interlocutory order" has observed:-
"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 decided 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."
9. In the judgment of Neelam Mahajan & another Vs. The State & Ors. dated 08.04.2016, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 4 of 6 "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."
10. Further, in the judgment of Varun Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C. No. 2424/2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court after referring the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Another" observed that the order passed by Ld. MM closing the right of complainant to examine Forensic Expert was held to be interlocutory order and consequently revision was held to be not maintainable.
11. Similarly, in the judgment of Sethuraman Vs. Raja Manickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the order refusing to call the documents and rejecting application U/S 311 CrPC are interlocutory orders and as such, revision against these orders are clearly barred U/s 397(2) CrPC. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is not applicable to the facts in hand.
12. Now turning to the facts of the present case: Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order, dismissed the application of revisionist moved under section 311 Cr.PC seeking recall of complainant/respondent for cross examination. The impugned order does not terminate the proceedings. It is clear that impugned order is merely a procedural order and therefore falls within category of 'interlocutory order', hence the Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 5 of 6 present revision petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed in view of bar created by Section 438 of BNSS ( para materia with Section 397 (2) CrPC) in view of the law laid down in 'Sethuraman' (Supra).
13. Even otherwise, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana Vs. Ram Mehar & Ors, 2016 (8) SCC 762 has observed that the Court should not recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination u/s 311 of Cr.P.C merely because previous defence counsel failed to put certain questions. It was emphasized that recalling of witness u/s 311 of Cr.P.C is for a just decision and to uncover truth, not fill the gaps or address the accused's choice of counsel.
14. With these observations, present revision petition stands dismissed being non-maintainable.
15. Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial court for information.
16. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed BHUPINDER by BHUPINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.09.20 16:10:12 +0530 Announced in the open (BHUPINDER SINGH) Court on 20th September 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-05, Central,Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 6 of 6