Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred ‘Cr.P.C.’) the
petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 19.12.2016 in Criminal Complaint No. 4998501/2016, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter
referred as ‘MM’), Dwarka Courts, and also order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred ‘ASJ’)
in Criminal Revision No. 120/2017.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had
taken loan from the complainant at the interest rate of 12% p.a, which is to be repaid by him within a period of one year. On the expiry of the
aforesaid period, he approached the   petitioner for return of money in lieu of which the petitioner issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 858476
dated 25.05.2012. On 26.05.2012, when the cheque was presented for encashment in the bank, the same was dishonored. Therefore, the complainant
lodged the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 against the petitioner. During trial, the concerned court allowed the plea of the
petitioner/accused vide order dated 12.05.2016, to place on record the FSL report of the alleged conversation with the complainant along with the
transcript. However, vide order dated 19.12.2016, the petitioner could not file the Forensic report, on account of which the court closed the right of the
petitioner for the examination of the Forensic Expert. The said order was challenged by the petitioner through a Criminal Revision No. 120/2017,
before the Special Judge, Dwarka, who dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability of the said revision under Section 397(2). Hence, the
present petition.
3. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 19.12.2016 and the order dated 13.04.2017 required to be set aside; that the petitioner
purchased a car in the name of the respondent no.2 to avail loan facility; that three cheques amounting to Rs.1,00,000 each was given by the petitioner
to the respondent no.2 towards security for the repayment of the EMI towards purchase of the i-20 car; that previously financial help was taken by
the petitioner from the respondent no.2 which in total amounted to Rs. 6,00,000 in respect of which written acknowledgement was issued to him dated
10.08.2011; that the respondent no.2 purchased a shop from the petitioner worth 13 lakhs and the amount due amounting to Rs.7 lakhs was to be paid
by the respondent no.2; that the cheques amounting to Rs.6,00,000 was issued by the respondent no. 2 but the same was dishonored by the bank; that
due to heavy losses suffered by respondent no.2 in the business, he started demanding money from the petitioner; the cheque book containing several
leaflets were stolen by the respondent no. 2 and his son from the office of the petitioner and that after threatening him, signatures were obtained by
him on the said cheques; that the respondent no.2 filled in the wrong amount (Rs. 2,00,000/-) on the cheques and consequently, filed frivolous cases
against the petitioner; that during the process of recording of the evidence, it can be seen that there are material contradictions in the statement of
CW-1; that the petitioner got several witnesses examined on his behalf who duly supported his case; that the petitioner was not able to submit the FSL
report due to paucity of fund and therefore, could not get the recorded conversation between the petitioner and the complainant in his mobile phone
verified from the FSL laboratory; that after a considerate period of time he got the appropriate agency for the Forensic examination and then on
16.01.2017, he submitted the recorded conversations with M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services; that on 17.03.2017, the FSL report was received in a
sealed envelop by him; that vide order dated 12.05.2016, the petitioner was directed to place before the court the documents alleged conversations
along with the transcripts and the report of the Forensic Expert and on 19.12.2016, when he failed to produce the FSL report, the Trial court closed
the right of the petitioner for examination of the Forensic Expert. To substantiate its case, he has relied upon Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (Crl. A. 842/2016) and CBI vs. Ravi Shankar Shrivastav reported in (2006) 7 SCC 188.
4. On these grounds the petitioner has sought setting aside of order 19.12.2016 arising out of complaint bearing CC No. 4998501/2016 and also the
order dated 13.04.2017 arising out of the revision petition, directed against him.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which require adjudication herein, is that whether the learned ASJ had erred in setting
aside the Criminal Revision petition No. 120/2017 vide its order dated 13.04.2016. Before advancing onto the issue raised in the present case, it would
be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 19.12.2016 arising out of complaint bearing CC No. 4998501/2016 which states that:-
“…Perusal of the record shows that the plea of the accused with regard to the examination of the Forensic expert was allowed on
12.05.2016 and till today the expert report is not placed on record. Perusal of the order sheet dated 22.10.2016 shows that one last
opportunity was given to the accused subject to cost of Rs.2000/- to be payable to the complainant. Despite the last opportunity, accused
failed to place on record the expert report. It is also to be noted that complaint pertains to senior citizen and the same requires speedy
disposal. Therefore, the right of the accused for the examination of the Forensic expert stands closed. There is no other witness to be
examined in the defence of the accused. Therefore, D.E stands concluded.â€
7. On perusal of the above order, it is observed that the petitioner herein was granted several opportunities by the Trial Court to place on record the
FSL report of the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 along with the transcript and on 19.12.2016, the right of the
petitioner to submit the said FSL report was closed by the Trail Court as he failed to submit it despite several opportunities.
8. The petitioner, then, filed a Criminal Revision No. 120/2017 against the order dated 19.12.2016, 09.01.2017 and 18.01.2017, and the order of the
said Revision court was pronounced on 13.04.2016 wherein the same was rejected by the learned ASJ on the pretext that: “In view of the
decision in Neelam Mahajan & anr. vs state & Ors. , Manu/DE/0871/2016, there is no force in the contention of revisionist is that impugned
order is not an interlocutory order merely because it disposes of an important aspect of the course of proceedings. Consequently, the
revision petition thereby praying for allowing the revisionist to bring on record the Forensic Expert Report and for examining the expert as
a defence witness is not maintainable in view of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and is dismissed.â€
9. After inspection of the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case, it is necessary herein to first understand the meaning of interlocutory
order. An Interlocutory Order (also known as an Interim Order) means the decision of the Court which does not deal with the finality of the case but
settles subordinate issues relating to the main subject matter which may be necessary to be decided during the pendency of the case due to the
urgency of those issues. It pertains to those orders which does not affect the rights and liabilities of the party concerned. In a landmark judgment of
the apex court in Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others reported in 1978 SCR (1) 222 held that:
“The term ""interlocutory order"" is a term of well-know legal significance which has been used in various statutes. Decided cases have
laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the right and liabilities of the parties concerning a
particular aspect. The term ""interlocutory order"" in s. 397(2) has, been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad and artistic sense.It
merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or 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  provision in S. 397 of the Code. 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 s. 397(2) of the 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 orders so as to be outside the purview of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court.â€
10. As far as order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned ASJ is concerned, it is rightly viewed by the said court that order dated 19.12.2016,
09.01.2017 and 18.01.2017 setting aside the revision petition being interlocutory in nature and the same cannot be challenged in a revision petition and
is liable to be set aside as per the settled proposition of law in that regard.
11. Therefore, it is observed that the order dated 13.04.2017 is an interlocutory order as it does not finalise the complete proceedings pending before
the Trial Court and thus no criminal revision is maintainable in view of Section of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order
dated 06.08.2016. Therefore, the interference of this court in the order dated 19.12.2016 and subsequent order dated 13.04.2017 while invoking its
inherent power is not called for.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
13. Copy of this Order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
