Delhi District Court
Jasvinder Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 17 March, 2025
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 331/2024
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-006051-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Jasvinder Singh
S/o Late Sardar Mohan Singh
R/o H. No. WZ-693, Street No.1,
Shiv Nagar Extn., New Delhi
2. Preet Mohan Singh
S/o Jasvinder Singh
R/o H. No. WZ-693, Street No.1,
Shiv Nagar Extn., New Delhi .... Revisionists
VERSUS
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Jasvinder Kaur,
W/o Inderpal Singh
R/o WZ-693, UGF,
Shiv Nagar Extn., Street No.1,
New Delhi-110058 .... Respondents
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17
17:31:20 -0200
CR No. 331/2024 Page No.1 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Date of institution of the revision petition : 15/07/2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 07/03/2025
Date of judgment : 17/03/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionists against the orders dated 29/01/2024 & 01/05/2024 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned orders') passed by Ms. Karuna, Ld. MM, Mahila Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 553/2019, PS Hari Nagar, titled as "State Vs. Jasvinder Singh & Anr.".
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to call the Trial Court record and to set-aside the impugned orders dated 29/01/2024 & 01/05/2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court and to discharge the revisionists from the charges u/s. 323/354-B IPC.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that on 11/12/2019, the complainant has made the complaint that she heard some hurling noise from the parking area and when the complainant came down, she noticed that her brother-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17
17:31:29 -0200
CR No. 331/2024 Page No.2 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
in-law J.S. Anand and his son Preet Mohan Singh were involved in scuffle with her husband Inderpal Singh and thereupon, the complainant intervened in the situation to safeguard her husband and to end the scuffle. During the scuffle, Preet Mohan Singh torn the kurti from the front and gave fist blows on the left eye, nose and abdomen of the complainant and on seeing the situation, the husband of the complainant had called the PCR and on arrival of PCR, complainant was taken to Deen Dayal Hospital by the police officials for conducting the MLC. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded by the Ld. MM. On perusal of MLC dated 11/12/2019, it is crystal clear that the said MLC was got prepared by the husband of the complainant and the complainant was referred to ENT. As per x-ray done by the ENT, no bone injury is seen and as per ENT, nature of injury is simple. Admittedly, the kurti of the complainant was not seized by the IO on the date of alleged incident and as per seizure memo, the same was seized by the IO on 13/03/2020. Seizure memo was prepared by the IO on the same day i.e. 13/03/2020, when the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Inderpal Singh was also recorded on 13/03/2020. On perusal of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of husband of the complainant, it is crystal clear that except verbal altercation between the husband of the complainant and Jasvinder Singh, no physical brawl took place on the said date. The complainant in order to create a scene and invite intervention of the public, she herself might have Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:31:37 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.3 of 31 Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
deliberately torn her kurti on the date of incident and put the entire burden upon the revisionist no.2. Complaint given by the complainant before Mahila Ayog on 11/12/2019 is contradictory to her statement given before the police and at the time of registration of FIR, she falsely mentioned the name of the revisionist no.2 by alleging that the revisionist no.2 allegedly tore the clothes of the complainant. No public persons were made as witness, who allegedly saved the complainant. Since no assault took place between the complainant and the revisionists, no public persons made as a witness in the present case. It is admitted fact by the husband of the complainant that he did not sustain any injury. Revisionist no.1 had already filed a complaint against the husband of the complainant in PS Hari Nagar on 27/09/2019 for frequently disconnecting the electricity and water connections at home. Inderpal Singh used to threat the revisionist no.1 and his family members that he does not have any fear of police and he can do whatever he wants. Husband of the complainant is not allowing BSES officials to remove the temporary connection and to install the new connection for electricity applied by the revisionist no.1 in November, 2019 despite the fact that revisionist no.1 was having temporary connection in his name. Thereafter, the revisionist no.1 had filed WPC No. 12100/2021 to get the independent electricity connection for the lift and common areas. Revisionist no.1 has already deposited the requisite charges for installation of water connections for first and third floors but the husband of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:31:47 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.4 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
complainant threatened the labour/plumber and did not allow them to install the water connection in the premises on the date of alleged incident i.e. 11/12/2019. Husband of the complainant had forged the signatures of his deceased father, who expired on 08/05/2017 and got the water connection sanctioned in the name of the deceased father in November, 2019. Husband of the complainant did not contribute the expenses incurred for the construction of the property except the initial amount of Rs.17 Lakh. In fact, the husband of the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.80 Lakh. Husband of the complainant in order to avoid the balance payment of Rs.63 Lakh, has falsely mentioned in the Civil Suit filed by the revisionist no.1 that he has paid Rs.65 Lakh in cash that too after demonetization. The main motive of the complainant and her husband is to usurp the property from the revisionist no.1 without making any contribution towards the amount involved in the construction. Complainant and her husband more often used to harass the revisionist no.1 and his family members without any justified cause or reason. Revisionist no.2 has already filed a complaint to the SHO, PS Hari Nagar on 02/11/2019 regarding the harassment caused by the husband of the complainant. Complainant in her complaint made before Mahila Ayog, did not mention about the allegation made in the FIR that the revisionist no.2 has torn the kurti of the complainant. Mother-in-law of the complainant had made a complaint to the police officials. Due to jealousy, the complainant got the name of the revisionist no.2 implicated in the FIR at the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:31:56 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.5 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
instance of Mahila Ayog. In fact, revisionist no.2 has no concern with the alleged incident and he is nowhere seen on the spot on the day of alleged incident. On 10/12/2019, the revisionist no.1 has made the complaint to SHO, PS Hari Nagar, against the husband of the complainant. Before the police authority could take any action on the said complaint, the complainant and her husband hatched a plan to implicate the revisionists in the false criminal case and this fact is confirmed when he took his wife to DDU hospital for conducting the MLC on his own after self inflicting the injury marks on her body and succeeded to get the MLC done from the hospital. Husband of the complainant had forged the signatures of his mother and filed a Writ Petition (CRL) and sought the relief against the son and two grand sons of Smt. Jeet Kaur. Wife of the revisionist no.1 had made the complaint to SHO, PS Hari Nagar on 11/12/2019 at 11:00 AM and FIR No. 555/2019, PS Hari Nagar u/s 354-B IPC was registered against the husband of the complainant. Hearing of both the aforesaid cases are going on before the Ld. Trial Court.
Ld. Trial Court had discharged the husband of the complainant for the offence u/s. 354/354-B IPC only on the basis of weak investigation of the IO as the IO did not got conduct the MLC of the victim. Revisionists have not filed any other same/similar petition on the same/similar grounds before this Court or Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:03 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.6 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court without considering the statement made by the complainant in case FIR No. 553/2019 simply discharged the husband of the complainant Inderpal Singh in cross-case FIR No. 555/2019 registered on the same day at PS Hari Nagar. Revisionists shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the revisionists are made to undergo trial for the offences, which they have not committed at all. Revisionists have no cause or motive to cause harm to the complainant in any manner. The present case has been filed by the complainant in connivance with her husband Inderpal Singh in counterblast to the case filed by wife of the revisionist no.1, so as to exert undue pressure on the revisionists and to implicate them in false and frivolous criminal case. Ld. Trial Court without applying its mind has discharged the husband of the complainant in FIR No. 555/2019. Revisionists have no doubtful antecedents and the prosecution of the revisionists is unjust and abuse of process of law. No prejudice will be caused to anybody, if the order dated 01/05/2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court is set-aside and revisionists are discharged from the offences u/s 323/354-B IPC.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:12 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.7 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
revision petition advanced by Ld. counsel for the revisionists, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 and Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned orders are not interlocutory orders and the present revision petition against the impugned orders is maintainable and impugned orders are liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 and Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned orders in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 29/01/2024 and 01/05/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned orders are reproduced as under:-
"29.01.2024 As per the direction issued by Hon'ble DHC vide letter No.01/RG/DHC/2023 dt. 05.06.23 regarding hybrid hearing, the matter is taken up through VC as well as physically.
Lawyers are abstaining from court work today.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17
17:32:22 -0200
CR No. 331/2024 Page No.8 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Accused No. 2 in person.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of the accused No.1. Same is perused and allowed for today only.
Put up for order on charge today at 4.00 PM.
(KARUNA) MM/MahilaCourt02 West/THC/Delhi 29.01.2024 At 4.00 PM Present: None.
Arguments on charge have already been heard.
This order shall decide whether there is sufficient material to frame charge upon the accused persons or not.
The counsel for accused persons did not argue despite several opportunities. He was given liberty to file written arguments, but the same was also not filed.
Ld APP for the state has argued that there are clear and specific allegations against the accused persons.
Perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has made specific allegations upon accused No. 1, namely, Jasvinder Singh of beating her husband. The complainant further alleged that when she went to save her husband, the accused 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh torn of her kurti and also gave her fist blows on her eyes, nose and abdomen. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:31 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.9 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
During investigation, the complainant was medically examined and doctor opined her injury to be simple in nature. In view of the allegations made by the complainant, prima facie offence u/s 323 IPC is made out against the accused No. 1, namely, Jasvinder Singh and prima facie offence u/s 323/354B IPC is made out against the accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh.
Further, no allegations have been made by the complainant upon accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh of hurling abuses against her and therefore, the accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh stands discharged for the offence u/s 509 IPC. The complainant has further alleged that the accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh used to give threat to her of killing Inderpal Singh / her husband, and her too if she comes in between them. It is settled principal of law that mere threat does not amount to criminal intimidation and therefore, the accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh also stands discharged for offence u/s 506 IPC.
Put up for framing of charge u/s 323 IPC against the accused No. 1, namely, Jasvinder Singh and charge u/s 323/354B IPC against the accused No. 2, namely, Preet Mohan Singh on 01.05.2024.
(KARUNA) MM/MahilaCourt02 West/THC/Delhi 29.01.2024"
"01.05.2024 As per the direction issued by Hon'ble DHC vide letter No.01/RG/DHC/2023 dt. 05.06.23 regarding hybrid hearing, the matter is taken up Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:42 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.10 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
through VC as well as physically.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
No PW is present.
Both accused in person.
Charge is framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Complainant be summoned for NDOH.
Put up for PE on 20.07.2024.
(KARUNA) MM/MahilaCourt02 West/THC/Delhi 01.05.2024"
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:50 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.11 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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 application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
7. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. 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 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 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 section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:32:59 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.12 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. 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 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
8. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr."
{(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:- Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17
17:33:07 -
0200
CR No. 331/2024 Page No.13 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub- section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. 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 decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:16 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.14 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:23 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.15 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
be explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. Vs. Fazru"
{(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:- Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:31 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.16 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus: "An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:39 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.17 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:47 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.18 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... 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, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:33:56 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.19 of 31 Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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 Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State 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 objection 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."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:07 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.20 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Neelam Mahajan and Anr. Vs. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:15 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.21 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned orders dated 29/01/2024 and 01/05/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide order dated 29/01/2024, order on charge was passed by the Ld. Trial Court and on 01/05/2024, charge was framed against both accused persons /revisionists.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned orders are interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Kumar Suneja case (supra) that order for framing of charge is an intermediate order.
Hence, the present revision petition qua order/ Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:25 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.22 of 31 Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
framing of charge is maintainable.
10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant, FIR No. 553/2019, Police Station Hari Nagar, u/s. 323/354-B/509 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Hari Nagar. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offence u/s. 323/354-B/506/34 IPC was submitted in the Ld. Trial Court on 16/03/2020 for trial of both accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 27/11/2021. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to both accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima-facie case against both accused, charge for the offence u/s 354-B/323 IPC was framed against the accused Preet Mohan Singh and charge for the offence u/s. 323 IPC was framed against the accused Jasvinder Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
11. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned orders dated 29/01/2024 and 01/05/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide order dated 29/01/2024, order on charge was passed by the Ld. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:33 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.23 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Trial Court and on 01/05/2024, charge was framed against both accused persons /revisionists.
It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage, the Court is not expected to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial or not.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI" {(2010) 9 SCC 368} that :-
"21. On consideration of the authorities about scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:42 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.24 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:34:49 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.25 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam" {(2020) 2 SCC 217} that :-
"...At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr." {2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057} that :-
"21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:02 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.26 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:12 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.27 of 31 Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:23 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.28 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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 or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding."
12. As per charge-sheet of the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that on 11/12/2019 at about 11:30 AM in front of House No. WZ-693, Shiv Nagar Extension, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi, accused Preet Mohan Singh had torn the kurti of the complainant and gave fists blows on her eye, nose and abdomen, when she came to save her husband and she sustained simple injury. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the aforesaid, time, date and place, accused Jasvinder Singh had given beatings to the husband of the complainant.
There are specific allegations against both accused persons. There is sufficient material on Trial Court record for the purpose of framing the charge against both accused. Prima-facie case for the offence u/s. 323/354-B IPC is made out against the accused Preet Mohan Singh and prima-facie case for the offence u/s 323 IPC is made out against the accused Jasvinder Singh.
All the contentions raised by the revisionists in the present revision petition are matter of trial.
13. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:31 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.29 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr." {AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 687} that :-
"The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.''
14. It is well settled law that the Revisional Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisional Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:39 -0200 CR No. 331/2024 Page No.30 of 31
Jasvinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
15. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionists is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.17 17:35:46 -
Announced in the open Court 0200
on 17/03/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 331/2024 Page No.31 of 31