Delhi District Court
R/O H. No. G2/2 vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-02: CENTRAL
DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-004833-2020
Cr. Rev. No. 195/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Chandra,
R/o H. No. F-7/30, First Floor,
Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi-110 089.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:-
R/o H. No. G2/20, First Floor,
Sector-15, Rohini,
Delhi-110089 ..... Revisionist
VERSUS
1 State of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary,
Home Affairs, Delhi.
2 The Manager,
State Bank of India,
ACGR Building Branch,
New Delhi ....... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.08.2020
Date of Decision : 18.10.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (MM), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Page 1 of 7 Date: 2021.10.21 17:24:21 +0530 Delhi in FIR No. 330/18 u/s 420/468/471 IPC, PS I. P. Estate, whereby an application of the revisionist/accused seeking superdari of vehicle bearing No. DL-8C-AE-0550 was dismissed.
2. The facts born out from the trial court record are that the FIR bearing No. 330/18, was registered at the behest of State Bank of India, Branch I.P. Estate, Delhi, against the revisionist/accused, stating that in August, 2013 the car loan of Rs.7,64,064/- was taken by the revisionist from the Bank. The said loan was to be rapaid by him in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.12,863/-. However, the revisionist did not repay the installments and his account was declared NPA from 31.09.2014. It is also alleged that the PAN card and the income tax returns, furnished by the revisionist at the time of obtaining the loan, were forged. During the investigation into the FIR, the hypothecated car was seized from the revisionist.
3. During the pending of investigation, the revisionist moved an application before concerned Ld. MM seeking release of car on superdari. Vide impunged order dated 16.07.2020, Ld. MM dismissed his said application observing that the revisionist has purchased the vehilce from the cheated amount, he has not repaid the installments and Bank is having hypothecation over the vehicle. The revisionist being aggrieved with the impugned order has filed the present revision petition.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/Bank has firstly argued on the maintainability of the present revision petition submitting that the impugned order is inter-locatory in nature against which as per Section 397 (2) Cr.PC, revision does not lie. He has argued that vide impugned order no substantial right of the parties have been decided to bring the said order within the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.10.21 Page 2 of 7 17:24:31 +0530 ambit of final order. In order to support his arguments, he has relied upon "V. C. Shukla Vs. State", AIR 1980 SC 962, and submitted that in the case before Hon'ble Apex Court it was observed that any order terminating the proceedings would be revisable by the competent court and while relying upon this judgement, Ld. Counsel has argued that any order on the application of superdari passed by the Courts cannot terminate the proceedings, therefore, the orders deciding the superdari applications can by no stretch of imagination come within the term of final orders, thus, the revision against the impugned order is argued to be not maintainable.
On merits, he has argued that the revionist has not only repaid the due installmlents but he also forged the PAN Card and Income Tax Returns (ITRs) while obtaining the loan from the Bank. During the course of arguments, he placed on record Ex-parte judgment/decree dated 29.11.2017, passed by Ld. ADJ- 03, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in new civil suit no. 614070/2016, in favour of Bank and against the revisionist for the same loan transaction regarding which the FIR of this case was registered.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has argued that the impugned order, though is not terminating the proceedings but the said order is not interlocutory since it has decided the important right of the revisionist.
On merits, he has argued that revisonist is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. He submitted that the complainant bank has not initiated any proceeding u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of Receiver to take possession of vehicle from the revisionist and Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.10.21 Page 3 of 7 17:24:42 +0530 without following the due procedure the bank could not illegally detain the vehicle in question.
6. The first and foremost argument of respondent no. 2/Bank is on the maintainability of the present revision petition since as per respondent no. 2 the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. The issue of maintainability of present revision petition was kept open by this court also vide its order dated 05.12.2020, prior to issuance of notice of the revision petition to respondent no. 2.
7. Section 397 Cr.PC specifically bars the revision against the interlocutory orders. In "Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanikam", Criminal Appeal No. 486-487/2009, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that order passed by the Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr.PC are interlocutory orders and as such the revision against those orders is clearly barred U/s 397 (2) Cr.PC.
8. In "Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana", AIR 1997 SC 2185, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to elaborate the term "interlocutory order" appearing in Section 397 Cr.PC. It was laid down in this case that interlocutory orders must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties which are purely interim or temporary in nature and do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties.
9. In "V. C. Shukla Vs. State", AIR 1980 SC 962, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:-
(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;
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: Page 4 of 7
2021.10.21
17:25:26 +0530
(2) That the concept of interlocutory
order has to 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 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: Page 5 of 7 2021.10.21 17:25:43 +0530 under Act. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges, the ACT works serious injustice to the accused.
10. "Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali & Ors", 30 (1986) DLT 107, is the direct authority on the issue in question. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, observed that order u/s 451 Cr.PC is essentially interlocutory in nature since the order dismissing the superdari application did not decide the rights of the parties and was an interlocutory order against which no revision would lie.
11. In view of the decisions in "V. C. Shukla Vs. State"
(Supra), "Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana" (Supra) and "Anisa Begum" (Supra), there is no force in the contention of revisionist that impugned order is not an interlocutory order merely because it disposes of an important aspect of the course of proceedings. The impugned order does not terminate the proceedings but the trial goes on until it terminates in acquittal or conviction. The impugned order does not decide any right but only the interim custody of the vehicle till disposal of the case.
No substantial right of ownership of the vehicle has been decided by way of impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order passed on the application praying for releasing the vehicle in question on superdari is purely interlocutory in nature, therefore, the revision petition against the said order in view of Section 397 (2) Cr.PC is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2021.10.21
17:25:56 +0530
Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 7
Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court alongwith copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWALCHARU Date: AGGARWAL 2021.10.21 17:26:04 +0530 Announced in the open court (Charu Aggarwal) on 18th, October-2021 ASJ-02/Central Distt./THC/Delhi Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 7