Delhi District Court
Sh Sone Ram vs The State on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-000908-2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 38/2026
SHRI. SONE RAM,
S/o. Sh. Hakim Singh,
R/o. House No. D-24/35/1,
Gali No. 24, Gamri Extension,
Delhi-110053. ... PETITIONER/
REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI),
2. SHRI. AVDESH GUPTA,
S/o. Late Shri. Jogender Gupta,
R/o. House No. A-102/4,
Som bazar, Gali Nos. 40 & 42,
A-Block, Gamri Extension,
Delhi-110053. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 15.01.2026
Date of institution : 16.01.2026
Date when judgment was reserved : 24.01.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 31.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS')/pari materia with Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 15.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-09/Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court') in complaint case bearing; 'Avdhesh Gupta v. Sone Ram, CC No. 716/2021', CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 1 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:16 +0530 initiated in terms of the provisions under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act'). Pertinently, by virtue of the said order, the Ld. Trial Court, dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to recall the respondent/complainant for his cross-examination.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings before this Court is a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138/142 NI Act, initiated by the respondent/complainant, before the Ld. Trial Court. Markedly, under the said complaint, the respondent inter alia contended that the revisionist was a close friend of the respondent and, in visiting terms with each other. As per the respondent, due to deep rooted friendly and cordial relationship, the revisionist used to persistently seek monetary assistance from the respondent. It was further proclaimed by the respondent under his complaint that in the month of January 2020, the revisionist along with his son, namely, Mr. Ravi, approached him/the respondent and requested him/the respondent to provide financial assistance for their urgent business needs. Accordingly, the revisionist and his son are asserted to have sought for friendly loan in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the respondent on the pretext of their business needs. As per the respondent, the revisionist assured/promised him/the respondent that the said amount would be returned/repaid within a period of six months from grant of such financial assistance. Consequently, believing on the assurance of the revisionist as well as considering their past friendly relationship, the respondent arranged and handed over a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in cash to the revisionist, CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 2 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:20 +0530 as interest free friendly loan to meet the revisionist and his son's said needs.
2.1. It is further chronicled under the respondent's aforesaid complaint that subsequently in the first week of February, 2020, both, the revisionist and his son again approached him/the respondent and again sought a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as friendly loan on account of marriage of revisionist's son. Consequently, due to their relationship, the respondent again arranged and handed over a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to the revisionist as interest free friendly loan to meet his said needs. Congruently, as per the respondent, he was assured by the revisionist and his son that the said amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) would be repaid/returned, promptly. However, as per the respondent, such assurances were all in vain. As per the respondent, not only did the revisionist and his son, did not oblige by their commitment, rather, they kept the matter lingering on, on one or the other pretext. It is further the case of the respondent that thereafter, after much persuasion, it was only in the month of November 2020, the revisionist issued two cheques, i.e., cheque bearing no. 268424, dated 17.11.2020 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and that bearing no. 228204, dated 20.11.2020 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), both drawn on Union Bank of India, Garhi Mandu Branch, Bhajanpura, Delhi (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'dishonoured cheques/cheques in question') in favour of the respondent against discharge of the aforenoted debt/liability. 2.2. As per the respondent, at the time of issuance of said cheques, he was assured by the revisionist that the said cheques CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 3 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:25 +0530 would be honored on their presentation. Consequently, as per the instruction of revisionist, cheque bearing no. 268424 was presented for encashment by the respondent with his banker on 18.11.2020 and the cheque bearing no. 228204 was also presented by the respondent for encashment with his banker on 23.11.2020. However, the said cheques were returned dishonored to the respondent vide return memos both dated 25.11.2020 under the remarks, "Funds Insufficient". It is further the case of the respondent that thereafter on the same day, the respondent visited revisionist's house, seeking return/payment of the amount of the said cheques, however, to no avail. Consequently, the respondent got issued a demand notice dated 26.11.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'legal demand notice/demand notice') to the revisionist in terms of the provisions under Section 138 NI Act, seeking payment of the dishonoured cheques amount. However, as per the respondent, neither any reply to the demand notice was forthcoming nor any payment made by the revisionist to the respondent, despite due service thereof. Consequently, under such circumstances, the respondent filed the aforenoted complaint before the Ld. Trial Court, in terms of the provisions under Section 138/142 NI Act.
2.3. Significantly, upon such complaint having been filed and upon pre-summoning having been tendered, Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 NI Act vide order dated 30.01.2021 and summons were issued against the revisionist. Subsequently, upon the revisionist's entering appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the revisionist vide order dated 23.11.2021, to which, the revisionist pleaded not guilty and CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:29 +0530 claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for cross examination of the respondent/complainant as well as on the respondent's application under Section 143A NI Act. However, during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist failed to enter appearance, leading to the Ld. Trial Court eventually initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Congruently, vide order dated 12.10.2023, the Ld. Trial Court, closed revisionist's right to cross examine the respondent inter alia under the following observations;
"...NBW of accused received back unexecuted with the report that accused does not reside there. It is noticed that accused is already aware of the proceedings. It appears that accused deliberately avoiding the process of law.
In view of the above, this court has sufficient reasons to believe that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrants could not be executed.
Accordingly, issue process u/s 82 CrPC against the accused on all the available addresses of the accused subject to filing of PF/RC within 3 weeks from today for NDOH.
Process server who executes the process u/s 82 CrPC will ensure that the same is executed at least 30 days before the NDOH as per the requirement of section 82 CrPC. The concerned process server will remain present in person before the court on the NDOH for recording of his statement. In the event of his absent, the process server is directed to file an explanation in writing to this effect. The complainant is at liberty to get the proclamation published in a leading newspaper having circulation in the area where the accused resides at this expenses and entire newspaper be placed on record.
It is clarified that no application for cancellation of the process u/s 82 CrPC will be entertained unless the complainant is put to advance notice. It is also noticed that sufficient opportunities have already been given to the accused to cross examine the complainant however accused has remained absent due to which cross examination of CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 5 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:33 +0530 complainant could not be conducted.
In these circumstances, right of accused to cross examine the complainant is hereby closed. Put up for report on process u/s 82 Cr.P.C/appearance of accused/further proceedings on ..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Subsequently, on 26.04.2024, the revisionist entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court and moved an application for recall of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2024. Thereafter, on 02.12.2025, the revisionist moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to recall the respondent for his cross examination. However, as aforenoted, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2025/impugned order, dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., under the following observations;
"...Vide this order, this court shall dispose of an application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), dated 02.12.2025, moved by Ld. Counsel for accused.
*** *** ***
5. The provision of 311 Cr.P.C enables the court to render just decision of case by determining the truth after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances. The wide discretionary powers given under the said section must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily. Moreover, the true test for exercising power under said provision is "essentiality of evidence" i.e. if evidence is essential to the just decision of case, power could ordinarily be exercised. However, at the same time, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C must not be allowed to fill lacuna in the case of prosecution or defence or to cause serious prejudice to opposite party or his defence.
6. In the present factual matrix, accused has filed an application to grant an opportunity to cross examine the complainant witness. The matter is listed for DE and the right of the accused to cross examine the complainant was closed on 12.10.2023. Perusal of the record shows that after the present CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:38 +0530 matter was fixed for CE, accused stopped appearing before the court and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the accused to secure his presence.
7. As per the application, complainant could not be cross examined on the relevant date as the accused was suffering from multiple ailments. It is pertinent to mention that statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded on 06.05.2025 and more than 2 years have passed away since the right of the accused to cross examine the complainant witness was closed. Further, the application moved on behalf of the accused is silent as to the aspects on which the complainant witness has to be cross examined by the Ld. Counsel.
8. It is, therefore, evident that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the accused to cross examine the complainant witness. Hence, the Court is not inclined to grant any further opportunity to the accused for the same.
9. Thus, in view of contextual facts, attending circumstances and above-mentioned discussion, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the accused stands dismissed...".
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order, dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is arbitrary, whimsical and against the cannons of law. In this regard, Ld. Counsel fervently argued that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled principles of law, deserving the same to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. Ld. Counsel further argued that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and no sound and/or cogent reasoning has been delineated under the impugned order. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner and in utter haste, in contravention to the settled law as well as judicial precedents. It was further submitted CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 7 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:42 +0530 by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the genuine cause, reason, ground, fact and events of the revisionist's application and has passed the impugned order, without applying judicial mind and in a mechanical/arbitrary manner. As per the Ld. Trial Court, while dismissing the revisionist's application, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist had already paid the cost, which was imposed by the Ld. Trial Court and complied the order of Ld. Trial Court, making the order liable to be rejected as it affects material right of the revisionist to cross-examine the respondent. Correspondingly, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that considering the fact that not a single opportunity was afforded to the revisionist to cross-examine the respondent, passing of impugned order would grossly prejudice the case of the revisionist. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the impugned order would have the effect of denying the opportunity to the revisionist to put forth his defence as well as bely the case of the respondent. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, without getting any opportunity to cross- examine the respondent and his witness, the entire case would automatically favour the respondent, making the proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice. 3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erroneously dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., without affording the revisionist, a proper opportunity to explain his case as well as impress upon the Ld. Trial Court, exigency of circumstances, necessitating the grant of relief, sought for in the said application. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that any technicality CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 8 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:46 +0530 cannot come in way of justice and principles of natural justice, which ought to be followed in all proceedings. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application, overlooking the impact of the same on the rights of the revisionist. Ld. Counsel further reiterated that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a casual manner, without appreciating that in case opportunity to lead evidence is not granted to the revisionist, irreparable harm, loss and injury would accrue upon him. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist was assiduously contesting/defending its case before the Ld. Trial Court and had no intention to delay the said proceedings. Ld. Counsel further reiterated that the case of the respondent is false, vexatious and based on concealment of real and material facts by the respondent. Therefore, it was submitted that it is necessary for the revisionist to elicit/bring the entire truth on record by cross examining the respondent as well as his witnesses. In as much as the aspect of maintainability of the present petition is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the impugned order affects the material right of the revisionist, so as not to be barred by the provisions under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C./Section 438(2) BNSS. As per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order is 'final' in as much as the revisionist's right to cross-examine the respondent is concerned, so as not to be barred by the said provisions. Ergo, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist entreated that the present petition deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice, and the impugned order be set aside. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Sh. Vimal Ghai v. Sh. MP Sharma, Crl. MC No. 4782/2024, dated 05.01.2026 (DHC); and CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 9 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:50 +0530 Vimal Ghai v. State, CR No. 142/2024, dated 05.04.2024 (Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (South), Saket District Courts).
4. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist have been heard as well as the record(s), including the Trial Court record(s) and the material placed on record of this Court, including the case laws relied, thoroughly perused.
5. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular that under Section 438 BNSS1, 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, 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...."
(Emphasis supplied) 1 Pari materia provision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Cr.P.C. provides, "397. Calling for records to exercise of 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..." (Emphasis supplied) CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.01.31 16:31:55 +0530
6. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (pari materia to Section 438 BNSS) observed as under:
"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..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Comparably, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 11 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:31:59 +0530 and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it 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. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations", the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC Online Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC 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."
2Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP
958.
CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 12 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:04 +0530 (Emphasis supplied)
9. Clearly, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court(s) is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Concomitantly, another inherent inhibition/embargo to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of Courts is envisaged under sub-Section (2) of Section 438 BNSS/Section 397 Cr.P.C., which bars the maintainability of revision against 'interlocutory order', objective behind the said provision being to avoid delay in enquiry and/or trial. Pertinently, the meaning of words/expression, 'interlocutory order(s)' has been persistently avowed in various decisions of Courts, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reference is outrightly made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137, wherein the Hon'ble Court remarked as under;
"6. ...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 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.
CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 13 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:08 +0530
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, while elucidating the words 'interlocutory order', noted as under;
"11. That apart, the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that no revision was maintainable on account of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. 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 [(1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585] , Madhu Limaye v.
State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] , V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI [1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : (1980) 2 SCR 380] and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam [(1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393] ). 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Relevantly, to comprehensively deal with the issue in hand it is further apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while appreciating the distinction CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 14 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:12 +0530 between; final, intermediate and interlocutory order as well as elucidating the connotation of 'intermediate order(s)', inter alia, observed as under;
"...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 v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] 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 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 proceedings would continue."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Evidently, in conspectus of the above, it is observed that the orders which may be passed by a criminal court may be categorized as; final order(s), intermediate order(s) and interlocutory order(s). Quite understandably, final orders are those that finally adjudicate the rights of parties, such as CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 15 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:17 +0530 orders/judgments of acquittal or conviction. In contradistinction, intermediate orders are the ones which, when reversed, have an effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in final order(s). Correspondingly, interlocutory orders, neither finally adjudicate the rights of parties nor have an effect of terminating/culminating proceedings when the objections raised by a party(ies) are upheld.
13. Germane for the present discourse to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153 at this stage, wherein the Hon'ble Court unambiguously declared that the orders passed on application(s) filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature, against which no revision would be maintainable. Apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts from the said dictate, as under;
"Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 16 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:21 +0530 Mahima Management Services (P) Ltd. v. Creative Property Developers (P) Ltd., CRR No. 2481/2018, dated 01.02.2024:
2024 SCC Online Cal. 939, reiterated in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"20. Perused the materials on record; also perused the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate. I have also perused the application filed by the present petitioner before the Learned Magistrate u/s 311 Cr.P.C. along with the connected Bank statements sought be introduced/filed in the present petition of complainant. The case of complaint is initiated u/s 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act alleging the commission of offence by the present Ops on the ground stated therein. The Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence and proceeded to heard the matter. The list of witnesses and list of document had already been filed before the Learned Magistrate at the time of filing of the complaint case. Trial has already been initiated. The examination in chief of the PW 1 has been concluded. Now the dates are fixed for cross- examination of PW 1. At this stage, the petitioner intends to introduce some more documents. The Learned Magistrate is of view that the prayer of the petitioner in the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. contained a prayer of introduction of the computerised bank statement and "other documents". The "other documents" were not specifically explained by the present petitioner before the Learned Magistrate. However it is the only purpose of the petitioner to substantiate the fact that the how the loan amount was received by the OPs through their bankers. However, from entire merits of the case if does not appear that any point of time the OPs have ever disputes about the delivery of the cheques. More over it is true that the order of rejection of an application u/s 311 Cr.PC is truly an interlocutory order. According to the provision of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. of a criminal revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order..."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Clearly, it is seen from above that the superior courts have persistently held that the order of dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is interlocutory in nature, against which criminal revision petition/revision under Section CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 17 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.31 16:32:25 +0530 397 Cr.P.C./Section 438 BNSS, is not maintainable. In as much as Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that since the impugned order affects the right of revisionist to cross examine the respondent, same ought to be treated as final order on the said aspect, this Court unambiguously observed that in case every order, which determines some/an issue is treated as intermediate or final order, same would result in opening floodgates of litigation and protracting trial, which menace was sought to be curtailed with the insertion of sub-Section (2) under Section 438 BNSS/Section 397 Cr.P.C. Relevant in this regard, to further make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam Mahajan v. State, 2016 SCC Online Del. 2281, when the Hon'ble Court, whilst being confronted with an akin/similar issue, inter alia, declared as under;
"16. The main question arises for consideration is whether the order passed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order or not? In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.
*** *** ***
18. 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 CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.01.31 16:32:31 +0530 in contrast with a final order.
*** *** ***
20. After perusing the impugned order as well as the material placed before this court and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court is also of the opinion that every interlocutory order merely because it disposes of an aspect, nay a vital aspect in the course of a pending proceeding even adversely affecting a party for the time being would not be something other than interlocutory."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Consequently, wary of the principles noted herein, this Court deems it appropriate to now consider the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in the present factual scenario. As aforenoted, vide impugned order/order dated 15.12.2025, the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Clearly, the said order/impugned order does not have the effect of terminating the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, hence, is understandably not 'final' in nature. Further, in case, the arguments addressed/objections raised by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are conceded to/upheld and the impugned order is consequently reversed, same would also not have effect of terminating the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, bringing the impugned orders outside the purview and ambit of 'intermediate order(s)'. As a corollary, the impugned order is nothing other than an 'interlocutory order', against which no revision would be maintainable, making the present petition liable to be outrightly dismissed in view of bar envisioned under the provisions under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C/Section 438(2) BNSS as well as in consonance with the aforenoted judicial dictates, i.e., in view of the decisions in; Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (Supra.); Mahima Management Services (P) Ltd. v. Creative Property Developers (P) Ltd., (Supra.) and Neelam Mahajan v.
CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 19 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.01.31
16:32:35 +0530
State (Supra.), wherein the order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been explicitly held by the superior courts to be interlocutory in nature.
17. Consequently, in conspectus of above and in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the order dated 15.12.2025, passed by Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in complaint case bearing; 'Avdhesh Gupta v. Sone Ram, CC No. 716/2021', dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is interlocutory in nature and not amendable to the scrutiny of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed as not maintainable, in view of bar envisioned under the provisions under Section 438(2) BNSS/Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Apposite at this stage for this Court to further note that, though, it/this Court holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, the same would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, come to the aid/rescue of the case put forth by the revisionist in the manner as prayed for, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly, distinguishable
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order/judgment.
19. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.01.31
16:32:39 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 31.01.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 38/2026 Sh. Sone Ram v. State & Anr. Page 20 of 20