Naveen Kumar Malhotra vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016
7 Whether the impugned order is interlocutory or not
and revision against the same is not maintainable, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent has placed reliance on a judgment in Sethuraman vs.
Rajamanikam (supra), however, ratio of this judgment is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in case titled "Ravinder C.P.Navelkar vs. Aruna
Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr" (supra), relied upon by the respondent, had
entertained a criminal M.C. 4299/2014 decided on 21.08.2015 on the
issue of cross examination, hence, maintainability of the present
revision petition cannot be challenged. In this case, the accused was
traveling beyond the defence taken by him in response to notice under
Section 251 Cr.P.C. and subsequent developments after filing of the
complaint. Hon'ble High Court had rightly curtailed the right of the
accused to do so. The facts in the present case are different, hence,
ratio of this judgment is not applicable.