Delhi District Court
J S Bhatia vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No: 501/2024
J. S. Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
CNR NO. DLWT01-009012/2024
In the matter of :
J. S. Bhatia @ Jappreet Singh Bhatia
D/8763/2021
S/o Sh. S. S. Bhatia
R/o E-4/5, GF, DLF Phase-I,
Gurugram - 122002.
..... Revisionist
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Ld. APP
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.10.2024
Date of reserving order : 05.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 [Earlier Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC')] assailing the order dated 05.09.2024 (herein after referred to as the Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 1 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 'Impugned Order') passed by Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (herein after referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court') in case FIR No. 943/2015, PS - Rajouri Garden under Section 323/354/506/341/34 IPC titled as State Vs. Sandeep Bhatia whereby order on application under Section 91 Cr.PC/94 of BNSS by the revisionist/accused seeking direction to W/Ct. Priyanka for production of emails of DCP/ACP and SHO PS - Rajouri Garden Official email ID on record, was passed.
Arguments addressed on behalf of revisionist
2. Assailing the impugned order, revisionist, who is a practicing lawyer submitted that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and against the settled law and material on record; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the very purpose of moving the application stands defeated with the circumvention of the solemn guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding Section 91 Cr.PC; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that by disposing the application under Section 91 Cr.PC in undue haste will vitiate the whole trial against the accused persons.
3. To substantiate his arguments, revisionist has placed reliance upon certain judgments, which shall be dealt in succeeding paragraphs.
Arguments addressed on behalf of State/respondents
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for State/respondent submitted that present revision petition is not maintainable as an order on Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 2 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature and revision petition against the same under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 is barred by law.
Relevant portion of the Impugned Order
5. The Court heard the arguments as advanced by revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent and gone through the material available on record including the Trial Court Record.
6. Before proceeding further, the Court finds it appropriate to discuss the relevant portion of the impugned order, whereby the Ld. Trial Court while dealing with the application under Section 91 Cr.PC/94 of BNSS filed by the revisionist/accused passed the impugned order, which reads as under:
" An application filed by accused persons u/s 91 Cr.P.C./94 BNSS. On LDOH, reply was filed by IO regarding unrelied documents/emails sought by accused Jaspreet Singh in the present matter. Copy provided.
In the said reply, it is stated by IO that during the period of 23.07.2015 to 10.11.2017, voluminous numbers of emails were sent to the office of DCP West, Delhi from the email ID [email protected]. IO has sought specific dates of emails from the accused, which the accused requires to be produced.
It is submitted by accused that IO be directed to produce each and every email sent from the said ID to the DCP office during the said period.
In my opinion, giving such direction to the IO, will not cut short the controversy and therefore, Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 3 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi accused persons are directed first to file a report mentioning the particular date and time on which the desired emails were sent and then IO shall be directed to produce all those emails as per the list on or before NDOH."
Analysis and Observation
7. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 [Earlier Section 397 Cr. PC.]. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce 438 of BNSS, which reads as under :
"Section 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 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. (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 Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 4 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
8. A plain reading of Section 438 of BNSS makes it manifest that Section 438 (1) of BNSS enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 438 (2) of BNSS mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub section (1) of Section 438 BNSS shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under S ection 438 (2) BNSS to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
9. The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 438 (2) BNSS denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 438 (1) BNSS in view of the express bar imposed under section 438 (2) BNSS.
10. "Interlocutory Order" is an order which is of a purely interim or temporary in nature and do not decide anything finally and only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 5 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi matter in a proceeding or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all.
11. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, wherein it has been observed that :
"12. Ordinarily and generally the expression "interlocutory order‟ has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term „final order‟. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England at p. 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606 ... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required.
In para 1607 it is said:
In general a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed "final".
In para 1608 at pp. 744 and 745 we find the words:
An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 6 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi declaration of right already given in the final judgment, are to be worked out, is termed "interlocutory". An interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals."
12. From the above, it is abundant clear that if an order is passed in a pending proceeding and the proceeding neither terminates finally nor are rights and liabilities of the parties decided in finality, then that order shall be considered as an interlocutory order.
13. The case law relied upon by the revisionist and filed on record are basically on the point of his right to file an application under Section 91 Cr. PC for production of documents and are not related to the maintainability of present revision petition.
14. This Court is guided by the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case Crl. M. C. No. 4719/2023 titled as Vikram Kathuria &Anr. Vs. State & Anr. while dealing with similar set of facts, which has also been relied upon by the revisionist, wherein it has been held that :
"30. ..........In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot agree with the reasoning of the learned ASJ and, therefore, also relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Sethuraman (supra), as well as independently examining the order passed by learned ACMM on the touchstone of principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court qua interlocutory orders, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed on application filed Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 7 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi under Section 91 Cr.P.C. even in the present case would fall in the category of interlocutory order.
31. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the revision petition filed before the learned ASJ was not maintainable, being a petition against an interlocutory order. Thus, the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned ASJ is liable to set aside on this ground."
15. In the instant case, the matter is at the stage of arguments on point of charge before Ld. Trial Court, when the the application was preferred by the revisionist/accused under Section 91 Cr. PC/94 of BNSS which was dealt by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order.
16. The Ld. Trial Court has only till now dealt with the application of the revisionist pending adjudication and has yet not dismissed or allowed the same vide the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order which is an interlocutory order has itself not attained the finality, since, the application for which revision has been filed is still pending adjudication before Ld. Trial Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Courts finds that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and its revision does not lie before this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
18. Even otherwise, this Court is in consonance with the observation made by the Ld. Trial Court that as per the reply of the IO, the emails sent to the office of DCP, West from email ID of revisionist Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 8 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi is during the period of more than two years, therefore, specific dates of the email required vide the said application shall be mentioned by the revisionist/accused. Ld. Trial Court has rather given fair opportunity to the revisionist/accused in order to prove his defence.
Conclusion
19. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby application under Section under Section 91 Cr. PC/94 BNSS of the revisionist/accused was dealt with, is hereby upheld, as there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid order. The present revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable as well as devoid of any merit.
20. The Trial Court Record along with the copy of this order be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
21. Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for both the parties, as prayed for.
22. The file of this revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. SHEFALI by Digitally signed SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2025.03.19 Pronounced in the open 15:37:25 +0530 Court on 19.03.2025 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Criminal Revision No. 501/2024 Page 9 of 9 J S Bhatia Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi