Delhi District Court
Ipl Biologicals Limited vs Telangana Agencies, Fertilizers And ... on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. APARNA SWAMI, ASJ-07
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLND01-002842-2025
Criminal Revision No.222/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s IPL Biological Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. Dayanand Singh
E-34, 2nd Floor
Connaught Place
New Delhi-110 001.
......... Revisionist
Vs.
(i) M/s Telangana Agencies, Fertilizers & Pesticides
Through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory
Mr. Chirumamilla Narasimha Rao
S/o Sh. Seetharamaiah
R/o Teegala (V) Konijerla (M), Wyra
Distt. Khammamwyra, Khammam
Telangana-507 165.
(ii) Mr. Chirumamilla Narasimha Rao
S/o Sh. Seetharamaiah
R/o Teegala (V) Konijerla (M), Wyra
Distt. Khammamwyra, Khammam
Telangana-507 165.
Also at:
R/o 2-27, Siddiq Nagar
Singrayampalem
Wyra Khamma, Telangana-507 165.
......... Respondents
CR No. 1152/25
IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 1/7
Date of institution : 28.04.2025
Date on which order reserved : Not reserved
Date of order : 16.05.2025
Decision : Revision is dismissed
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned orders dated 01.02.2025 and 11.03.2025, passed by the court of Ld. JMFC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in complaint case No. 676/2021, titled as IPL Biological Vs. M/s Telangana Agencies, Fertilizers & Pesticides.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the Authorized Representative of the revisionist company on the grounds that:
i) The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.02.2021 summoned the respondents as none appeared, therefore, on 20.03.2021 and 30.11.2021, Bailable Warrants were ordered to be issued against accused persons;
ii) Vide order dated 24.01.2022, Non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the accused persons, and again on 08.12.2022, Non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, which returned on 13.04.2023 with the report that accused has left the address one year ago. Accordingly, the learned Trial CR No. 1152/25 IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 2/7 Court issued process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused. However, process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. could not be executed.
iii) On 01.02.2025, the process server appeared before the court and requested for another opportunity for recording of his statement. The counsel for the complainant also requested for one more opportunity for verifying the factum of death. However, the learned Trial Court imposed a cost of Rs.500/- on the revisionist, and adjourned the matter for 11.03.2025.
iv) On 11.03.2025, the counsel for the complainant appeared and stated before the court that steps had been taken to verify the factum of death of the respondent and sought time for filing the required documents. The learned Trial Court granted time subject to imposition of further cost of Rs.1,000/- upon the revisionist.
3. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 01.02.2025 and 11.03.2025, the present revision petition is filed before this court.
4. On filing of the present revision petition by revisionist, the question of its maintainability was raised and submissions of Ld. counsel for the revisionist were heard.
CR No. 1152/25 IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 3/75. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Magistrate has exercised the jurisdiction arbitrary and mechanically without proper justification, while imposing cost at a stage when the matter was listed merely for procedural steps, such as recording of statement of the process server and verification of death.
6. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had not caused any delay or default warranting such costs.
7. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for the revisionist that the costs imposed are excessive, unrelated to any actual prejudice, and not proportionate to the stage or nature of proceedings.
8. This court has heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for revisionist and have perused the impugned orders.
9. At the outset, this court notes that the orders dated 01.02.2025 and 11.03.2025 are interlocutory in nature, passed in the course of procedural compliance in a pending matter. These orders do not finally decide any substantial rights of the CR No. 1152/25 IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 4/7 parties, nor do they terminate any stage of proceedings conclusively.
10. While dealing with the scope and power of revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 has observed:
"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.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an CR No. 1152/25 IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 5/7 interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
11. It is also relevant to mention the observation in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI (2017) 14 SCC 809, wherein it has been observed that:
"It is well settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as per section 397 (2) of Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage. The test is whether by upholding objection raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so in order passed on such objection would not merely be interlocutory in nature."
12. In the present case, the orders imposing nominal costs for procedural lapses do not affect the substantive right of the party and are meant to ensure procedural discipline. Therefore, such orders fall within the category of interlocutory orders and cannot be subject to challenge under a revision jurisdiction.
CR No. 1152/25 IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 6/713. Accordingly, the present revision petition is held to be not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
14. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
15. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Aparna Digitally signed
by Aparna Swami
On 16.05.2025 Swami 16:52:00 +0530
Date: 2025.05.16
(Aparna Swami)
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
16.05.2025
CR No. 1152/25
IPL Biological Ltd. Vs. Telangana Agencies Fertilizers and Pesticides Page 7/7