Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kumar Kardam vs State And Anr on 18 August, 2025
DLND010032942025 Page 1 of 14
24 Cr Rev / 257/2025
YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM
Vs.
STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue)
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.257/25
In the matter of :-
Yogesh Kumar Kardam
S/o. Sh. Durga Singh
R/o. 4/2317, Gali No.5,
Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi .....Revisionist
(represented by Sh. Gaurav Goel, Advocate)
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) ....Respondent No.1
(Represented Sh.
Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State)
Rakesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Virender
R/o. Store CPWD,
Near Shiv Mandir,
South Avenue, New Delhi ....Respondent No.2
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 07.05.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 31.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025
JUDGMENT:-
1. Introduction
(i) The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 438, 440 and 441 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter DLND010032942025 Page 2 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) referred to as "BNSS"), by the revisionist, Yogesh Kumar Kardam, seeking to set aside the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr. Case No. 584 of 2025. The revisionist challenges his summoning as an accused in connection with FIR No. 16/2024 registered at P.S. South Avenue under Sections 125(b) 3(5) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS"). The petition was instituted on 01.05.2025, arguments were heard on 31.07.2025, and the judgment is being pronounced on 18.08.2025.
(ii) The factual background, as emerging from the record, pertains to an incident on 22.11.2024 at approximately 3:00 PM, where the revisionist, as a rear-seat passenger in a private car bearing registration number DL 1 CG 6460 driven by the proforma respondent No. 2, opened the rear left door after the vehicle halted in the middle of the road. This led to a collision with an approaching motorcyclist, resulting in injuries to the rider. Following investigation, a charge-sheet dated 20.01.2025 was filed, implicating the revisionist. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons after perusing the materials on record, vide impugned order dated 21.02.2025.
2. Impugned Order
(i) The impugned order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, records that the court perused the charge-sheet and accompanying materials, including the FIR, witness statements, medical legal certificate (MLC) of the victim, mechanical inspection report, site plan, arrest memos, and disclosure statements. Cognizance was taken under Sections 281 and 125(b) BNS read with Section 3(5) DLND010032942025 Page 3 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) BNS and Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court thereafter proceeds to admit the accused on bail upon furnishing bonds. It further directs the Investigating Officer to file a kalandra against the vehicle owner under Section 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for allowing driving without a valid license. The matter was posted for scrutiny of documents and framing of notice on 16.05.2025. The impugned order is reproduced as under :
"
21.02.2025 This court is functioning without any Regular Stenographer since 14.02.2025.
Lawyers are abstaining from work.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
IO ASI Manoj in person.
Both accused are present (though not summoned) record.
I have perused the charge-sheet and other materials available on I have also gone through the other materials including the contents of FIR, seizure memo, site plan, arrest memo, MLC of the victim, mechanical inspection report, disclosure statement of the accused and statement of the witnesses etc. I hereby take cognizance of offence punishable u/s 281, 125 (b) r/w Section 3(5) BNS and 3/181 MV Act.
It appears that the owner of the vehicle which was being driven by a person who was not having a valid driving license had not been made accused in the present case for the offence punishable under Section 5/180 MV Act. IO submits that he will be filing a kalandra against the owner separately.
Let the kalandra be filed positively by the next date of hearing.
DLND010032942025 Page 4 of 1424 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) Both accused are admitted on bail subject to them furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
Bail bonds be furnished by the NDOH.
Let copy of chargesheet be supplied to both accused against acknowledgment.
Put up scrutiny of documents/framing of notice on 16.05.2025."
3. Scope of Revision under section 438 BNSS (397 Cr.P.C 1973)
(i) Prior to adjudicating the case on its merits, it is essential to delineate the scope and extent of these proceedings as well as the authority vested in this court under section 438 BNSS.
(ii) Section 438 BNSS read 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.
(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."
(iii) The wording of the section is verbatim the same as of section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
DLND010032942025 Page 5 of 1424 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue)
(iv) A plain reading of Section 438 of the BNSS clearly indicates that Section 438(1) allows aggrieved parties to challenge the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order issued by the trial court. Such challenges can be brought before a revisional court, namely the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction upon both judicial authorities.
(v) Section 438 (2) BNSS prohibits the revision powers under Section 438(1) BNSS from being used on interlocutory orders in appeals, enquiries, trials, or other proceedings. This creates an explicit legislative bar against revising such orders.
(vi) It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the Trial Court and jurisdiction under section 438 BNSS to be exercised for setting right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law cannot be equated with the power of Appellate Court.
(vii) As regards the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C (analogous to section 438 BNSS) in judgment titled as 'Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander', (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"8. ....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 scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law......."DLND010032942025 Page 6 of 14
24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue)
(viii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey', Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
(ix) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjaysinh Ramarao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 held:
"14. .........Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction". (emphasis supplied).
(x) Scope of revision has been explained in para 9 of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine 312 which reads 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 DLND010032942025 Page 7 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) 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. "
(xi) The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Needless to say, that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally and judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or jurisdiction.
4. MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION
(i) The threshold issue is whether the revision petition is maintainable against a summoning order. Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders of Magistrate courts to ensure correctness, legality, or propriety. However, Section 397(2) bars revision against interlocutory orders.
(ii)Summoning orders under Section 204 Cr.P.C. / 227 BNSS, issued post- cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. / 210 BNSS, are not purely inter- locutory but intermediate in nature, as they substantially affect the rights of the accused by compelling appearance and initiating trial. This classi- fication renders them amenable to revision.
(iii) In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders rejecting pleas which, if ac- cepted, would conclude proceedings are not interlocutory. Summoning orders fit this criterion, impacting liberty under Article 21 of the Consti- tution.
DLND010032942025 Page 8 of 1424 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue)
(iv) Further, in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134, Hon'ble Apex Court explicitly ruled that summoning orders are interme- diate and revisable under Section 397, as their reversal could terminate proceedings absent a prima facie case.
(v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jinagar, (2004) 7 SCC 338, has held that a summoning order passed by a Magistrate is re- visable.
(vi) Thus, the present revision is maintainable.
5. Grounds of Revision The revisionist has raised several grounds, labeled A through L, challenging the impugned order, which are summarized as follows:
A. The impugned order is non-speaking and mechanical, failing to evaluate the revisionist's role or how his act satisfies the ingredients of rashness or criminal negligence under Section 125 BNS.
B. The accident occurred solely due to the motorcyclist's attempt to overtake from the left side, an unusual and unsafe maneuver, while the revisionist opened the door after the car stopped, under a reasonable belief of safety.
C. Even if the door-opening contributed, it was not the direct or sole cause; intervening acts, such as the motorcyclist's failure to maintain a safe distance, break the chain of causation, rendering the revisionist's action legally remote.
D. Section 125 BNS requires rash or negligent conduct amounting to a breach of duty of care; as a rear-seat passenger without control DLND010032942025 Page 9 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) over traffic, the revisionist's act does not equate to criminal negligence, citing Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, which distinguishes simple lack of care from gross negligence. E. Interpreting Section 125 BNS (analogous to Section 336 IPC), a higher threshold of "gross" negligence is implied, as held in Shah Rukh Khan v. State of Gujarat & Ors. MANU/GJ/1359/2022; the revisionist's conduct lacks such culpability. F. No prima facie case is made out under Section 125 BNS, as the revisionist was merely a passenger without control over traffic or the motorcyclist's unsafe overtaking.
G. In similar circumstances, no case is established where injury results from the victim's conduct without overt acts by the accused, citing Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 17 SCC 193.
H. No provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a legal duty on a rear-seat passenger to monitor traffic before opening the door; absence thereof cannot amount to a penal offence. I. The impugned order lacks analysis of the revisionist's role or how door-opening constitutes an offence under Section 125 BNS, being passed mechanically without evaluating evidence, contrary to Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609. J. Continuation of proceedings without a prima facie case amounts to harassment and abuse of process, as observed in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692.
K. The accident occurred in dynamic traffic; the revisionist DLND010032942025 Page 10 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) reasonably assumed safety after the stop and was not positioned to perceive rear traffic.
L. Neither the FIR nor charge-sheet attributes direct or willful rashness or intent to the revisionist.
Findings of Court on the Grounds
6. Upon careful consideration of the grounds raised collectively, this Court finds them untenable in light of the material on record, including the charge-sheet, CCTV footage, mechanical inspection report, and applicable legal principles. The impugned order, though concise, demonstrates due application of mind under Section 226 BNSS by referencing perusal of key documents such as the FIR, statements, MLC, and reports, satisfying the requirement for forming an opinion on prima facie grounds as per Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra); elaborate reasoning is not mandated where the record substantiates the decision, and the absence of detailed analysis does not render it mechanical or non-speaking, as contended in grounds A and I.
7. The CCTV footage objectively depicts the vehicle halting mid-road--a position inherently risky and heightening the potential for accidents--and the rear left door opening abruptly without visible checks for rear traffic, leading directly to the collision, rider's fall, and injuries, corroborated by door damage (dents and impact marks) indicating proximate causation rather than remote or broken chains, thereby countering grounds B, C, F, K, and L which attribute sole or primary responsibility to the motorcyclist's left-side overtaking or intervening acts, or claim a reasonable assumption of safety in dynamic traffic without evidence of caution; such assertions invoke contributory negligence, a defense requiring evidentiary evaluation at trial, including traffic norms and expert testimony, and cannot justify DLND010032942025 Page 11 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) interference at this stage, as per State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.
8. Section 125 BNS demands gross negligence endangering life or safety, and here, the act of door-opening in traffic without caution meets this threshold, as the revisionist's position as a passenger does not absolve the duty of prudence in road safety, distinguishing from Jacob Mathew (supra) (which addressed medical negligence and emphasized a "very high degree" for criminal liability, but in a context where professional judgment errors were at issue, unlike the foreseeable risk in traffic here) and Shah Rukh Khan MANU/GJ/1359/2022 (where remote causation in a promotional event stampede led to quashing due to multiple intervening factors and lack of proximate acts, contrasting with the revisionist's direct involvement supported by footage). Thus, grounds D and E fail, as the conduct exhibits the requisite culpability implied by the statutory language of "so rashly or negligently." Reliance on Shiv Kumar Jatia (supra) in ground G is misplaced, as it pertained to vicarious liability of a hotel manager absent overt acts in a guest's fall from 6th floor, whereas here the revisionist's overt act of door-opening is directly linked to the incident, and the motorcyclist's role, if any, is contributory rather than absolving.
9. The absence of a specific statutory duty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as argued in ground H, does not preclude liability under BNS, which encompasses common-law principles of negligence where basic caution in public spaces is expected to prevent endangerment. Continuation of proceedings does not constitute abuse or harassment under ground J, as prima facie material exists indicating potential rashness, aligning with Madhavrao (supra), which permits setting aside only if uncontroverted DLND010032942025 Page 12 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) allegations disclose no offence or conviction prospects are bleak--criteria not met here given the objective evidence.
10. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist relied upon Section 14 of The Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulation, 2017, which relates to overtaking. The said rule is reproduced as under :
"Section 14 in The Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017
14. Overtaking (1)A motor vehicle shall not overtake any other road user unless it is safe and not in violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force.
(2)A vehicle shall be overtaken only from the right side:Provided that a vehicle may be overtaken from the left, if-
(a)the vehicle which is to overtake and the vehicle which is to be overtaken are both driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle ahead can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle being overtaken;
(b)the vehicle to be overtaken is either turning right or making a `U' turn from the centre of the road and is giving a signal to turn and it would be safe to overtake it from the left; or
(c)the vehicle to be overtaken is stationary and it is safe to pass it from the left.
(3)No vehicle shall be overtaken if such overtaking is likely to impede the oncoming traffic.
(4)While overtaking, the vehicle shall be driven at a speed higher than that of the vehicle to be overtaken, but the speed shall not exceed maximum speed limit specified by or under the Act or the rules made thereunder. (5)No vehicle shall overtake-
(a)if the traffic situation is not clear;
(b)if prohibited by any mandatory traffic signs;
(c)by crossing the continuous single or double solid longitudinal lane marking dividing the road;
(d)on a bend or corner or at any obstruction of any kind resulting in the road DLND010032942025 Page 13 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) ahead not being clearly visible;
(e)at junctions, intersections and pedestrian crossings;
(f)at a transit location where the road narrows or where lanes on the carriage way are reduced in width;
(g)on a narrow culvert; or
(h)on a road where `School Zone' or `Hospital Zone' or `Construction Zone' is indicated by road signs.
(6)The driver shall use the direction indicators to show his intention to overtake and, after manoeuvring the overtaking, return to the left side of the road as quickly as possible.
(7)No driver shall give a right turn indicator to signal permission to the following vehicle to overtake him.
(8)Outside built up areas, the driver shall signal his intention to overtake the vehicle ahead of him by blowing the horn for a very short duration or by headlight flasher signal and may overtake the vehicle after getting a signal for overtaking from the driver in front or if the way ahead is clear. (9)If a vehicle is overtaking another vehicle, the driver of the vehicle being overtaken shall not increase its speed or impede the overtaking vehicle's safe return to the left lane."
11. As per rule 14(2)(c), the vehicle may be overtaken from left, if it is stationary and it is safe to pass it from left. Perusal of CCTV footage shows that the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the road and for a motorcyclist, there was no reason to feel it unsafe to overtake it from the left. There was sufficient space on the left side to overtake the vehicle / car and no one could have perceived that a passenger in car would open the door while the vehicle is in middle of road to alight. Hence, the said rule also doesn't come to the rescue of the revisionist.
12. Collectively, the grounds fail to establish jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or injustice warranting revision, as the materials prima facie DLND010032942025 Page 14 of 14 24 Cr Rev / 257/2025 YOGESH KUMAR KARDAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.
(South Avenue) disclose an offence under Section 125(b) BNS, justifying the learned Magistrate's cognizance and summons.
Final Order
13. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2025 is upheld. Ld. trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
14. The trial court record be returned forthwith. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information.
15. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
SAURABH Digitally
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP signed by
SAURABH
18th day of August, 2025 SINGH
LALER
PARTAP
SINGH LALER
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/18.08.2025