Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-013723-2025
Crl. Revision No. 275/2025
Sh. Ratan Lal Gupta
S/o Sh. Tara Chand Gupta
R/o C-2nd/38, Raju Park
Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. Neelam Sharma
W/o Sh. Brahm Sharma
R/o House No. 2054, 2nd Floor
Outram Lane, GTB Nagar
Delhi – 110009
…..Respondent No. 1
2. M/s Gennext Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Through Authorised Representative,
Having its Corporate Office at E-37,
Ground Floor, Sector -3, Noida-201301
.…Proforma respondent No. 2
Date of institution : 15.10.2025
Arguments concluded on : 13.12.2025
Date of Order : 15.12.2025
Order
1. Vide this order, this Court shall dispose of the instant
revision petition filed by revisionist Ratan Lal Gupta against the
impugned order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the Court of Ld.
ACJM (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case titled as “Neelam
Sharma Vs. M/s Gennex Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” bearing Ct.
Case No. 966/2017, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has observed
that despite specific direction, accused has chosen to remain
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
present by way of VC and in view of the conduct of the accused
and the report of NBWs, process under Section 82 CrPC has
been ordered against the revisionist
2. Aggrieved against the said impugned order, the revisionist
has preferred the present revision petition praying therein to set
aside the impugned order on the ground that the revisionist is a
law abiding citizen and the Ct. Case No. 966/2017 has been filed
against him for dishonour of three cheques for total amount of
Rs. 48 lacs while another Ct. Case No. 967/2017 was filed by the
husband of respondent no. 1 for dishonour of three cheques
amounting to total of Rs. 48 lacs; that the parties had entered into
a mediation settlement on 06.07.2023 for settlement of their
dispute for a total amount of Rs. 75 lacs to be paid by the
revisionist in installments but the revisionist could not adhere to
the payment schedule due to financial difficulties; that the
revisionist has made a substantial part payment to the tune of Rs.
13,44,000/- to show his bonafides but the Ld. ACJM has
erroneously recorded that the revisionist is not interested to
comply with the directions of the Court; that the impugned order
has failed to take cognizance of the severe financial constraints
faced by the revisionist as his company’s bank account has been
frozen by the Income Tax Department against which appeal has
been filed.
3. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant
has argued that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in
the impugned order and has prayed that the present revision
petition may be dismissed as the present revision is against an
interlocutory order and is not maintainable. It is submitted that
the revisionist has no regards for the courts of law as well as for
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
his own undertaking as he has not abided by the mediation
settlement terms dt. 06.07.2023 as well as his own undertaking
given before the predecessor of this court in Cr. Rev. No.
1745/2024 on 20.12.2024 and the revision filed by the revisionist
merits outright dismissal as the same has been filed with a view
to delay the matter.
4. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
5. First of all, this is to be decided by this Court is whether
the present revision petition is maintainable in view of the bar
created by provisions of Section 397(2) CrPC. Here, it will be
relevant to reproduce relevant portion of Section 397(2) CrPC
which reads as under:
“
Sec. 397: Calling for records to exercise powers of
revision. (I) 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 bail
or on his own bond pending the examination of the
record. Explanation ................
(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) .............."
6. In the judgment “Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana &
Anr., (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 137, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while interpreting “Interlocutory order” has observed, “It
seems to us that the term “Interlocutory order” in Section 397(2)
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
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 decided 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.
7. Further in the judgment of Varun Aggarwal Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C. No. 2424/2017, Hon'ble Delhi
High Court after referring the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in “Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana &
Another” observed that the order passed by Ld. MM closing the
right of complainant to examine Forensic Expert was held to be
interlocutory order and consequently revision was held to be not
maintainable.
8. In the judgment of Sethuraman Vs. Raja Manickam,
(2009) 5 SCC 153, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
order refusing to call the documents and rejecting application
U/S 311 CrPC are interlocutory orders and as such, revision
against these orders are clearly barred U/S 397(2) CrPC.
9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case title Virkaran Awasty
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, CrlMC No. 2229/2017 decided on
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
01.11.2017, has held that 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.
10. Now turning to the facts of the present case. Ld. Trial
Court vide impugned order, has directed issuance of process u/s
82 CrPC as the various process issued against him on all the
addresses furnished by him, were received back unserved.
Perusal of the record also shows that the Ld. Trial Court in
proceedings dt. 18.05.2024 has recorded about the conduct of
revisionist / accused and that the revisionist / accused has been
extremely irregular in the appearance. It is also been recorded
that on various occasions NBWs issued against the revisionist /
accused have received back unexecuted and the revisionist /
accused appearance through VC is not objected to by the court
but since the accused was neither making the payment as per his
own undertaking and has removed himself from jurisdiction of
Delhi, it clearly shows the conduct of the accused that he is
misusing the liberty given to him and his request of cancellation
of NBWs was declined. The Ld. Trial Court vide order dt.
12.08.2025 had categorically directed for physical appearance of
the accused but the accused did not appear physically on
20.08.2025 and hence, vide impugned order process u/s 82 CrPC
has been issued against the revisionist / accused as various
coercive process issued against him had been received back
unserved from all his known addresses. The impugned order does
not terminate the proceedings. The revisionist can always appear
before the concerned court for recall of the process under Section
82 and 83 CrPC but he cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
own undertaking dt.20.12.2024 made in Cr. Rev. No. 1745/2024.
The revisionist has succeeded to delay the proceedings as the
matter pertains to the year 2017. It is clear that the impugned
order is only a procedural order and therefore, is an interlocutory
order and hence, the present revision petition is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed in view of bar created by Section
397 (2) CrPC.
11. In view of the above reasoning and discussion, in the
considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality, infirmity
or irregularity in the impugned order. Same is accordingly,
upheld. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby
dismissed being not maintainable along with a cost of Rs.5000/-
payable by the revisionist to the respondent//complainant.
12. TCR be sent back along with an copy of this order.
Revision petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
today on 15th day of December 2025
(PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi
CR No. 275/2025
	Ratan Lal Gupta vs. Neelam Sharma & Anr.
	Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --