Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE – 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 181/2024
In the matter of:
Vivek Tyagi
ACP, Delhi Police
s/o Late Shri Daya Nand Tyagi
Office at: Crime Branch NR-1,
Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085.
……….Revisionist
Vs.
(I) The State
NCT of Delhi.
(ii) Naseem Begum
w/o Shri Abdul Wahab
d/o Shri Zaheer
r/o C-1083, Gali No.7, Zafrabad,
Delhi-110053.
(iii) Abdul Wahab
s/o Late Shri Abdul Salam
r/o 536/2, Gali No.26, Zafrabad,
Delhi-110053.
……….Respondents
Date of Institution : 27.08.2024
Reserved on : 30.09.2024
Announced on : 05.11.2024
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, the Court shall decide one revision
petition filed by revisionist u/s 438 BNSS, challenging impugned
order dated 18.05.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court in case titled
‘State vs. Abdul Wahab’ bearing FIR No. 466/2014, PS Jafrabad
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
whereby Ld. Trial Court ordered to bring the conduct of
revisionist to the notice of Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi
with further directions to the Joint Commissioner to file
explanation qua the erring officials including revisionist.
2. The case FIR No. 466/2014 u/s
498-A/406/354-A/323/506/34 IPC PS Zafrabad was registered
pursuant to directions of the then Ld. MM dated 09.07.2014.
Respondent No. 2 being the wife and respondent no.3 being the
husband had strained matrimonial relationship. The matter was
investigated, statements were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and after
completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet was filed
before Ld. Trial Court on 25.08.2017. The said chargesheet had
been forwarded by the revisionist being the then SHO, PS
Zafrabad. Respondent no. 3 was named in column no.11 as the
main accused and his other family members (five) were kept in
column no.12. Vide order dated 21.09.2017, cognizance of
offence was taken and respondent no.3 was summoned as an
accused. The matter was first heard partly on point of charge on
17.11.2018. On 16.10.2019, IO/ASI Satyavir filed supplementary
challan. While hearing the matter on the contents of
supplementary chargesheet and point of charge, Ld. Trial Court
passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2024 directing the
conduct of revisionist to be brought to the notice of Joint
Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
Aggrieved by the said order, revisionist is before this
Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order.
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
3. Notice of the petition was issued to respondents who
appeared in compliance thereof. The Court heard the submissions
of Ld. Counsel for both the sides.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 raised
question regarding maintainability of present petition arguing
that the impugned order is '
interlocutory' in nature as substantial
rights of revisionist have not got affected by the impugned order
and therefore, petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Considering the aforesaid question raised by Ld.
Counsel, this Court shall decide the same as a preliminary
question before adverting to the merits of the case. The
submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist were also heard on
this aspect.
6. The first question to be decided by this Court is the
maintainability of the present revision petition in view of the
statutory prohibition u/s 438 BNSS (Sec.397 Cr.P.C). It is
significant to reproduce relevant portion of Section 438 BNSS
which is as under:-
“Sec.438- 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
situated 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
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
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) ...”
7. In the judgment titled ‘Amar Nath Vs. State of
Haryana’, (1977) 4 SCC 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
interpreting ‘
Interlocutory order’, observed as under:-
“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 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.”
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is
observed that Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order directed to
bring the conduct of revisionist to the notice of Joint
Commissioner of Police, Delhi with further directions to the
Joint Commissioner to file his explanation.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order
in no manner, terminate the proceedings or determine the rights
or liabilities of the parties or the revisionist/the then SHO. It is
explicit from the bare perusal of the impugned order that the
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
nature of investigation (which Ld. Trial Court did not find to be
appropriate) carried out under the supervision of revisionist has
been ordered to be brought to the notice of Joint Commissioner
of Police. Such an order is, certainly, interlocutory in nature as
no adverse finding of a final nature has been recorded by Ld.
Trial Court. There is no reason why the impugned order be not
considered interlocutory in nature as there is nothing in the
revision petition touching upon the said aspect of the statutory
prohibition of Sec. 438 BNSS.
The argument of Ld. Counsel for revisionist that
bringing the matter to the notice of Joint Commissioner of
Police would affect the career prospects of the revisionist in
coming future, is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of
the case. The revisionist cannot challenge an order of such
interlocutory nature merely on the basis of certain
contingencies which ‘may’ or ‘may not’ follow on the basis of
any inquiry if conducted in future by the Joint Commissioner of
Police. Further, Ld. Trial Court may bring the deficiencies in
the investigation and the role of investigating agency/officials
to the notice of senior police officers who may consider such
aspects within their respective administrative domain.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the present revision
petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this
technical ground alone in view of the statutory bar created by
Section 438 BNSS.
Even otherwise, this Court has perused the
impugned order in the light of available Trial Court Record. The
same appears to have been passed after due consideration of the
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
facts, circumstances and nature of investigation. This Court does
not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the order
of Ld. Trial Court dated 18.05.2024. Accordingly, the present
revision petition is liable to be dismissed being non-
maintainable, as well as on merits.
11. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
dismissed. Before parting with the present order, it is observed
that the matter is languishing at the stage of charge for last about
six years. Ld. Trial Court is directed to make necessary
endeavour to proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible
particularly in the light of the fact that for last about one year, the
matter is dragging only on the issue of deficient investigation and
conduct of police officials.
Dictated & announced in the open
Court on 05.11.2024.
(ARVIND BANSAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Vivek Tyagi vs. The State & Ors.
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --