Delhi District Court
Sanjay Uppal vs State on 25 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Cr. Revision No. 187/2020
1. SANJAY UPPAL
S/o SHRI SUDESH KUMAR UPPAL
R/o 477, DOUBLE STOREY
NEW RAJINDER NAGAR
NEW DELHI - 110060
2. KAVITA UPPAL
W/o SHRI SANJAY UPPAL
R/o 477, DOUBLE STOREY
NEW RAJINDER NAGAR
NEW DELHI - 110060
.....REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
1. STATE
THOUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
2. Smt. PREETI ANAND
W/o SHRI DEEPAK ANAND
R/o J-377, 3rd FLOOR,
NEW RAJINDER NAGAR,
NEW DELHI 110060
.....RESPONDENTS
Date of filing: 09.07.2020
First date before this court : 09.07.2020
Arguments concluded on : 23.09.2021
Date of Decision : 25.09.2021
Appearance : None
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this revision petition brought under Section 397 CrPC, the revisionists, who are complainants defacto before the learned Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 1 of 6 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:46:35 +05'30' magistrate in proceedings arising out of FIR No.148/2019 of PS Rajinder Nagar, have assailed order dated 09.04.2020, whereby the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) was directed to be released on bail in view of resolution dated 28.03.2020 of the High Powered Committee. At the very inception of this revision petition, learned counsel for revisionists was called upon to address on maintainability of this revision petition but thereafter despite repeated adjournments across more than one year none appeared for the revisionists. Even steps for issuance of notice to the private respondent were not taken despite repeated directions and imposition of cost. It being a criminal revision petition, the petition cannot be dismissed in default and for failure to prosecute. As such, I have examined the issue.
2. For the sake of convenience, the order impugned in the present case is quoted below :
FIR No. 148/2019PS Rajinder Nager State vs Preeti Anand U/s 420/468/467/120B IPC 09.04.2020 Interim Bail application under Section 437 CrPC of accused Preeti Anand.
Present : Ld. APP for the State Sh. Rajiv Talwar, Ld. counsel for accused.
Heard counsel for accused and perused the reply.
The accused being a woman and in custody for a period of more than 50 days and further the Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 2 of 6 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:46:13 +05'30' investigation being carried out by the regular PS. She is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of concerned jail superintendent in view of the resolution to constitute a High Powered Committee dated 28.03.2020.
Accused be released from JC if not required in any case.
Copy of order be sent to Jail Superintendent concerned through dispatch rider deputed in this court by the jail authority.
Copy of the order be given dasti.
S/d (Chander Mohan) Duty MM. Central /THC
3. Noticeably, Section 397(1) CrPC confers on the High Court as well as Court of Sessions very wide powers to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of any order passed by any "inferior criminal court". Sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC operates as a check on the said vast revisional powers and the purpose of the said check is to curb delays in the decision of the criminal cases, in order to ensure fair and expeditious trial.
4. Basically, a judicial order passed by a criminal court can be either final order or intermediate order or interlocutory order. So far as final order is concerned, there can be no difficulty in the sense that an order of acquittal or conviction is a final order. The issue lies while distinguishing between an interlocutory order and an intermediate order, which distinction is necessary in view of the statutory bar created by Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 3 of 6 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:45:52 +05'30' Section 397(2) CrPC, which curtails the revisional powers of the High Court and the Court of Sessions with respect to interlocutory orders.
5. In the case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, {Cr. Appeal No. 1137 of 2017, arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9503/2016, decided on 13.10.2017 by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborately discussed the law related to right to file revision petition under Section 397 CrPC and recapitulated the previous judicial precedents, including those cited above, and held thus :
"17. 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. ......
......
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 :
"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, Madhy Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V. C. Shukla v.
Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 4 of 6 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:45:33 +05'30' State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the 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 by us). ....
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 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 which if set aside would result in culmination of the proceedings." (emphasis supplied) In the case of Virkaran Awasty vs State of NCT of Delhi, CrlMC 2229/17, decided on 01.11.2017 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal of the Delhi High Court, it was held after detailed discussion that an order directing issuance of non-bailable warrants is an interlocutory order and therefore, criminal revision against that order is not maintainable in view of Section 397(2) CrPC."
6. In the case of Virkaran Awasty vs State of NCT of Delhi, CrlMC 2229/17, decided on 01.11.2017 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal of the Delhi High Court, it was held after detailed Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 5 of 6 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:45:16 +05'30' discussion that an order directing issuance of non-bailable warrants is an interlocutory order and therefore, criminal revision against that order is not maintainable in view of Section 397(2) CrPC.
7. Undoubtedly, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2020, cannot terminate the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 148/2019 of PS Rajinder Nagar. The impugned order granting bail to the private respondent is only a procedural order to ensure that the private respondent is not incarcerated in jail during pendency of trial and to ensure that she appears on each date of hearing during trial of this case. That being so, the impugned order is not an intermediate order and the same is interlocutory order, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this court.
8. Consequently, the revision petition is not maintainable, so the same is dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court and revision file be consigned to records.
Announced through videoconferencing
due to Covid-19 lockdown on this
25th day of September, 2021
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2021.09.25 14:44:55
+05'30'
(GIRISH KATHPALIA)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Cr. Revision No 187/2020 Sanjay Uppal & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page 6 of 6 pages