Delhi District Court
Suman vs Naveen Kadyan on 4 July, 2026
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyan
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 220/2026
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-004619-2026
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Suman
D/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o H.No. 188, Bakkarwala,
New Delhi-110041 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
Naveen Kadyan
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kadyan
R/o H.No. A-9, Amar Colony,
Kammaruddin Nagar, New Delhi-110041 .... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 19/04/2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 29/05/2026
Date of judgment : 04/07/2026
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:32:41
+0530
CR No. 220/2026 Page No.1 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyan
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 440
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS ‘) filed by
the revisionist against the order dated 20/01/2024 (‘hereinafter referred to as
‘impugned order’) passed by Ms. Alka Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila Court-03), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MC
No.5552724/2016 titled as “Suman V. Naveen Kadyan & Ors.”
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to
set-aside the impugned order dated 20/01/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present
revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that by way of
present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated
20/01/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the right of the complainant to
lead evidence was closed. On 18/11/2023, complainant had filed her evidence by
way of affidavit along with list of witnesses and the matter was listed for
20/01/2024 for complainant’s evidence. On the relevant date, counsel for the
complainant was engaged in two matters between the same parties before the
Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi and
the present matter was also listed before the Ld. Trial Court on the same day.
Due to the said unavoidable and bonafide professional engagement in the matters
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:32:56
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.2 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanlisted between the same parties on the same date i.e. 20/01/2024, the counsel for
the complainant could not appear before the Ld. Trial Court at the time when the
matter was called. However, Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order by
observing that despite last opportunity, the complainant neither appeared nor
tendered her evidence and closed the complainant’s evidence. The impugned
order is illegal and arbitrary. No other petition has been filed seeking similar
relief before any other Court of law.
3. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as
mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner
without appreciating that the complainant had already filed her evidence by way
of affidavit and list of witnesses. Non-appearance of counsel for the complainant
was due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances, i.e., engagement before
another Court in connected matters between the same parties. Right to lead
evidence is a valuable and substantive right and closing the same, results in
serious prejudice to the complainant. No prejudice will be caused to the
respondent, if one effective opportunity is granted to the complainant to lead her
evidence. Revisionist had also filed application u/s 151 CPC on 11/07/2024
seeking recall of the impugned order dated 20/01/2024, which remained pending
and was ultimately heard on 10/02/2026, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was
pleased to grant liberty to counsel for the complainant to approach the Ld.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:33:03
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.3 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen KadyanSessions Court for appropriate relief. However, despite the same, the valuable
right of the complainant to lead evidence remains closed, resulting in grave
prejudice and miscarriage of justice. Impugned order is contrary to the settled
law. It is a settled principle of law that matters should be decided on merits rather
than on technicalities. Impugned order has resulted into grave miscarriage of
justice by denying the complainant an opportunity to prove her case.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the maintainability of present
revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. Perused the
material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel
for the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the
present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and
impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the
present revision petition.
Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions has relied
upon the following case laws:-
1. Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2017) 14
SCC 809}
2. Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.” {(1977) 4 SCC 137}
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:33:11
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.4 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanchallenged the order dated 20/01/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The
impugned order is reproduced as under:-
” 20.01.2024
Present: None for complainant.
Cognizance against respondents no.5 to 6 have
already been declined.
Ld. Counsel for remaining respondents.
Despite last opportunity, complainant has not
appeared today nor has tendered her evidence, accordingly,
her evidence stands closed.
Be put up for further proceedings on
06.04.2024.
(Alka Singh )
MM (Mahila Court-03),
West, THC, Delhi/20.01.2024
At 11:25 am
At this stage, Complainant with Ld. Counsel
Ms. Safina Khan have entered appearance. They are apprised
of NDOH. Be put up on date fixed.
(Alka Singh )
MM (Mahila Court-03),
West, THC, Delhi/20.01.2024 ”
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 438 BNSS (Section 397
of Cr.P.C.) is reproduced as under:-
Section 438:- Calling for records to exercise powers of
revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:33:19
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.5 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanmay 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- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial,
and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction,
shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the
purposes of this sub-section and of section 439.
(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) If an application under this section has been made
by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions
Judge, no further application by the same person shall be
entertained by the other of them.
7. The wording of Section 438 BNSS is verbatim the same as of
Section 397 Cr.P.C.
A plain reading of Section 438 BNSS (Section 397 of Cr.P.C.).
makes it manifest that Section 438 (1) BNSS enables the aggrieved parties to
question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order
recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:33:29
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.6 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen KadyanCourt or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High
Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that
Section 438 (2) BNSS mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) of Section 438 BNSS shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore,
express bar is created by the legislation under section 438 (2) BNSS to entertain
revision against an interlocutory order.
The term “interlocutory order” as mentioned in section 438 (2)
BNSS denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not
decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which
is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to
be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory
order is maintainable under section 438 (1) BNSS in view of the express bar
imposed under section 438 (2) BNSS.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final,
intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order,
a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of
acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as
an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one
which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of
terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:33:37
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.7 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyan
8. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
as “Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.” {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
“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. 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
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:33:46
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.8 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanrevisional jurisdiction of the High Court”.
It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as ” V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I.” (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the
parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an
interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be
explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if
an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English
Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in
one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in
another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in
our opinion, the term ‘interlocutory order’ in the Criminal
Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to
include even intermediate or quasi final order;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the
accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it
finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the
controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before
the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an
interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy
because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this
Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even
against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it
cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order
framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:33:55
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.9 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen KadyanIt was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. V. Fazru” {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
“Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines
interlocutory order thus:
“An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given
during the progress of an action, but which does not finally
dispose of the rights of the parties.”
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an
interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order
which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the
rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other
words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is
one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue
or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which
does not however conclude the trial at all.”
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision
petition have also been laid-down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation” {(2017) 14
SCC 809} and it was held that :-
“15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise
of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely
curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete
prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in
respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of
orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass
final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:34:07
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.10 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanrespect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction – that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or
conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the
court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an
interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further
elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by
contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order.
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.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye
was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a
revision petition was filed challenging the taking of
cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel
case, SCC p.201, para11)
“11. ….. It is now well-nigh settled that in
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:34:18
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.11 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyandeciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of
the Code, the sole test is not whether such order
was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar
Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State
of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra
Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible
test is whether by upholding the objections
raised by a party, it would result in culminating
the proceedings, if so any order passed on such
objections would not be merely interlocutory in
nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the
Code. In the present case, if the objection
raised by the appellants were upheld by the
Court the entire prosecution proceedings would
have been terminated. Hence, as per the said
standard, the order was revisable.”
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the
appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a
revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be
taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no
obligation to entertain a revision petition – such a petition can
be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to
accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order
or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside
would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see
it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a
revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is
before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed
by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a
revision petition in the High Court is taken away and
thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the
extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:34:28
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.12 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen KadyanCr.P.C.”
It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors.” {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
“…….. In this regard catena of judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while
holding that the meaning of the two words “final” and
“interlocutory” has to be considered separately in relation
to the particular purpose for which it is required. However,
generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the
principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously,
an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main
dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with
which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the
order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive
and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be
attached to the order.”
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has
challenged the impugned order dated 20/01/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Vide impugned order dated 20/01/2024, right of the complainant for her
evidence was closed.
It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very
limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner. It is also well settled
law that question/ issue of maintainability of the criminal revision can be
examined by the Court at any stage.
Now, this Court shall discuss the legal aspect in respect of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:34:37
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.13 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanmaintainability of the present revision petition and has to see as to whether the
impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
Now, this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order
dated 20/01/2024 in respect of closing the right of the complainant for her
evidence is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Varun Aggarwal V. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.” { CRL. M.C. No. 2424/2017
decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 05/12/2017 and 04/01/2018} that
order of closing the right to examine the witness and evidence is an interlocutory
order.
In view of the law laid down in Varun Aggarwal case (supra), it is
clear that impugned order dated 20/01/2024, closing the right of the complainant
for her evidence, is an interlocutory order.
10. On perusal of impugned order, it is clear that same is neither final
nor intermediate but the same is purely an interlocutory order. Impugned order
cannot said to be final or intermediate order in any manner. If the impugned
order is set-aside, then there would be no culmination of the proceedings. Hence,
present revision petition of the revisionist is not maintainable against the
impugned order, as the same is an interlocutory order.
11. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the
case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist, however, there is nothing in
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.07.04
16:34:54
+0530CR No. 220/2026 Page No.14 of 15
Suman Vs. Naveen Kadyanthe case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist to show that criminal
revision is maintainable against the order of closing the right of the evidence.
12. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case
laws, this Court is held that impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is
purely an interlocutory order and being interlocutory order, the impugned order
is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the
present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed, being not maintainable.
No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this
judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.07.04
16:35:00
Announced in the open Court +0530
on 04/07/2026 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 220/2026 Page No.15 of 15
