Delhi District Court
Smt Kamlesh Sharma vs Durga Sharma on 29 April, 2026
(RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 37/2025
SMT KAMLESH SHARMA Vs. DURGA SHARMA
CNR No-DLNE010013202025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (Substituted complainant),
W/o. Late. Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma,
R/o. H.No-E-65, Gali No-2, ...Revisionist
Subhash Mohalla, North Ghonda,
Garhi Mendu, Delhi-110053
Versus
Smt. Durga Sharma,
W/o. Sh. Vinod Sharma, .....Respondent
R/o- FF-38B, Laxmi Nagar,
Shakarpur, Mangal Bazar, Delhi-110092.
Date of Institution : 26.09.2025
Date of O r d e r : 29.04.2026
ORDER
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 1/8
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:37 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025
1. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of substituted complainant Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, challenging the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by Ld. JMFC-01, N/E, KKD (hereinafter referred as the Ld. Trial Court), in CC No-1484/2017, titled as "Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs Durga Sharma".
2. The aforesaid complaint was originally filed by Pawan Kumar Sharma (husband of the present revisionist). He expired on 15.12.2022 and after his death, the revisionist was substituted as complainant. During lifetime of Pawan Kumar Sharma, an application was moved for amendment of the complaint on the ground that due to clerical mistake, it was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that loan was taken by accused. However, it was actually taken by son of the accused Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma.
Accused/respondent had issued the cheque in question as guarantor in discharge of liabilities of his son, as his son had failed to pay the loan amount of Rs. 87 lacs.
3. The Ld. Trial Court observed that the said amendment was going to the root of the complaint and therefore dismissed the same vide order dated 17.02.2022. Now, after substitution of revisionist/Smt. Kamlesh Sharma as a complainant, she sought to file an affidavit containing the same facts which were subject matter of the amendment application which was earlier dismissed. The Ld. Trial Court refused to take the post- summoning evidence of the revisionist on the ground that it will Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 2/8 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:38 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025 amount to amendment of the complaint which will cause prejudice to the respondent/accused.
4. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist/complainant has stated that such amendment of complaint which may go to the root of the matter, can undoubtedly be disallowed by the court. However, an affidavit filed in the post-summoning evidence is a statement of the complainant. It is for the witness to decide that what statement has to make via the affidavit. No doubt, the credibility and evidentiary weightage of such statement made via the affidavit, can be decided by the court but court cannot refuse to take the said affidavit and the documents on record.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent/accused has submitted that the order dated 20.12.2024, whereby the revisionist was directed to file fresh post-summoning evidence in accordance with order dated 13.07.2022, is an interlocutory order where no revision petition is maintainable. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that as per Section 136 of Evidence Act castes a mandatory duty on the court to see the relevancy and admissibility of the evidence sought to be led by the parties. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that revisionist is only a substituted complainant who has to step into the shoes of the original complainant and as such cannot lead evidence which is different from the original complaint, as a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence beyond pleading in the original complaint and amendment application.
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 3/8Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:36 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025
6. Submissions heard. Record perused.
7. In case titled as "Dilshad Hussain Vs. Pushpa Devi" Crl M.C 13644 and 13645/2025". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made some observations to clarify the distinction between an interlocutory order and an intermediate order. The relevant observations are as under:-
"6. Basically, a judicial order passed by a criminal court can be either Final Order or Intermediate Order or Interlocutory Order. So far as final order is concerned, there can be no difficulty in the sense that an order of discharge or acquittal or conviction is a final order. The issue lies while distinguishing between an interlocutory order and an intermediate order, which distinction is necessary to understand, in order to analyze the statutory bar created by Section 397(2) CrPC, aimed to curtail the revisional powers of the High Court and the Court of Sessions.
6A. In the case of Amar Nath & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others,1977 CrLJ 1891, a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court dealt with the provisions under Sections 397(2) and 482 CrPC and held that an interlocutory order is that order which does not decide rights or liabilities of the parties; that an order which affects rights of the parties cannot be called an interlocutory order; and that orders which are procedural steps, like summoning of witnesses, adjournments, bail and calling for report etc., which are steps in the aid of pending proceedings are interlocutory orders; and that subsection (2) was inserted in Section 397 CrPC in order to protect right of the accused so that trials do not get delayed.
6B. The concept of "intermediate order" was elucidated in the case of Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India while distinguishing a final order from an interlocutory order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid 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. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing various judicial precedents held that the view expressed in Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 4/8 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:37 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025 the case of Amar Nath (supra) needs to be modulated and modified on one part and needs to be reaffirmed on the other part. The view taken in the case of Amar Nath (supra) that where bar of Section 397(2) CrPC applies, inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked by the High Court was modulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that bar of Section 397(2) CrPC shall not obstruct the inherent powers of the High Court if the High Court finds it necessary to intervene and prevent abuse of process of court. The other point of the case of Amar Nath (supra) was reaffirmed that the interlocutory order is not converse of the final order and that order on charge is not an interlocutory order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the feasible test is whether upholding the objections raised by a party would result in culminating the proceedings, and if so, any order passed on such objections would not be an interlocutory order as envisaged 6C. In the case of K.K. Patel & Anr vs State Of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, another Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court held that in deciding whether an order is interlocutory or not, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage, but the feasible test is as to whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings and if so, such order would not be merely interlocutory order as envisaged by Section 397(2) CrPC and consequently such order would be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated thus: "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, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). 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 objections 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)."
8. In "Amarnath & Ors Vs. State of Haryana " case referred by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has carved out a clear distinction between an interlocutory order and an immediate Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 5/8 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:37 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025 order. An Interlocutory Order has been defined as an order which does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties, whereas, an order which affects the rights of the parties, cannot be called as an Interlocutory Order.
9. Here in this case, the right to file evidence by way of affidavit has been declined by the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court wants the revisionist to file the affidavit as per the facts mentioned in the complaint. To the understanding of this court, right to file an affidavit in evidence is an effective and substantial right of a party. If that right is taken away, the complainant cannot lead its evidence and prove its case. Therefore, the order in question cannot be termed as an Interlocutory Order. Same is Intermediate Order where the revision petition is maintainable.
10. In a criminal case, a court can no doubt refuse to permit such amendment in a complaint which goes to the root of the matter. However, to the humble opinion of this court, the law applies differently on evidence by way of affidavit. An evidence by way of affidavit is nothing but a kind of examination-in-chief recorded before the Oath Commissioner. When it comes to the examination-in-chief, it is for the witness to decide that what facts, he want to depose, even when the evidence is given by way of affidavit. The court cannot dictate the facts which have to be mentioned in the affidavit by the witness. No doubt, if the facts alleged in the evidence by way of affidavit, are contradictory from the facts mentioned in the complaint on some material points, the court has power to give lesser evidentiary weightage Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 6/8 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:36 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025 to such evidence after considering all the surrounding circumstances.
11. If the facts are completely different from the complaint, no doubt court can reject the same on ground of irrelevancy. But, the case in hand does not fall in the category where complainant has mentioned completely irrelevant facts in the affidavit. There might be some difference in the facts alleged in the complaint and in the affidavit but that shall not render the evidence completely irrelevant.
12. Therefore, to the understanding of this court, the Ld. Trial Court should not have refused to accept the affidavit in post- summoning evidence, merely because the facts were not exactly in accordance with the original complaint.
13. For the reasons discussed above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, same is accordingly set aside.
14. Directions are issued to the Ld. Trial Court to accept the evidence by way of affidavit and accompanying documents. No doubt, the evidentiary value of the facts mentioned in the affidavit shall be decided at the appropriate stage, after considering all the concomitant circumstances.
15. Revision stands disposed of.
16. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 7/8Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:37 +0530 (RK) ORDER Cr Rev 37/2025
17. TCR, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court alongwith copy of this order.
18. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court BABRU on 29-04-2026. BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.04.29 16:16:47 +0530 (BABRU BHAN) ASJ-04/North-East District KKD/Delhi/29.04.2026 Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Durga Sharma Page 8/8 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.04.29 16:16:37 +0530