Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CR No: 517/2025
Shahil Vs. State
CNR No. DLCT01-013773-2025
15.09.2025
Present: Sh. Brij Raj, Ld. counsel for he revisionist with
revisionist.
Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the
State/Respondent.
1) Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that the order dated
01.09.2025 suffers from irregularity as the revisionist was not
keeping well and he has even filed the medical documents for
his non-appearance on the date i.e. 24.07.2025.
2) Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that there is no irregularity,
infirmity in the order dated 24.07.2025.
3) I have heard, Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
4) Before adverting to the facts of the case, the law on
interlocutory order needs to be noted, as if it is found that the
orders is interlocutory, the revision petition would not be
maintainable. In the landmark judgment titled as
Amar Nath
& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India discussed the meaning of
interlocutory order and observed as follows:-
“The main question which falls for determination
in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the
term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-
section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision
of such an order by the High Court. 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.
-- 1 of 4 --
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. 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”.
5) The concept of an intermediate order was further
elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in
Madhu Limaye vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC
551, laid down the following test for deciding interlocutory
order:-
“An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a
point which, when accepted, will conclude the
particular proceeding, will surely be not an
interlocutory order within the meaning of
Section 397(2).”
-- 2 of 4 --
6) 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 proceeding would continue.
7) Vide order dated 01.09.2025 the Ld. Trial court dismissed the
application of the revisionist on the ground that in medical
documents have been prepared subsequently. I find that there
is no infirmity in the order dated 01.09.2025, however,
technicalities of law should not sub serve the ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances subject to cost of
Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in this court the order dated
01.09.2025 stands set aside. Cost paid.
8) The warrants stands cancelled. The revisionist is directed to
appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date fixed. Cost
stands paid. Revision stands allowed.
-- 3 of 4 --
9) Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Copy of the
order be given dasti to revisionist and be sent to Ld.Trial
Court for information.
(ANKUR JAIN-I)
ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
15.09.2025 km
-- 4 of 4 --