TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned ASJ Dwarka Courts, New Delhi holding that the CRL.REV.NO.37/15 was not maintainable, is thus set aside - petition disposed off. - CRL. M.C. 193/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2018 - MS. ANU MALHOTRA J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Adv. Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Arora, Adv. JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J. 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned MM (NI Act)-03/Dwarka in CC No. 6478/14 vide which the application of the applicant/accused arrayed as the petitioner in the present petition seeking to send a cheque in question for examination to a handwriting expert was declined and also assails the impugned order dated 03.10.2015 of the learned ASJ (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 37/15 which upheld the order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned MM (NI Act)-03/Dwarka in CC No. 6478/14. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent to put in appearance and oral arguments have been addressed on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent by their learned counsel. 3. Written submissions have also been filed on 31.01.2018 on behalf of the petitioner. On b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he had given the cheque in question blank, signed to Dal Chand for payment of instalment of a motorcycle which he had purchased from Sai Auto Dealer, Manesar and that the accused Dal Chand had misused the said cheque by playing fraud upon him and by handing over the cheque to the complainant. 7. Placed on Trial Court Record is also an agreement Ex.CW1/A as borne out by the certified copy thereof annexed to the present petition entered into allegedly between the complainant and the respondent to the present petition regarding sale of the property. As per Ex.CW1/A, it was specifically mentioned in the said agreement that Dal Chand had arranged the money from the complainant and that is why the present cheque was handed over to the complainant and the said agreement was signed by both Dal Chand and the accused and on inquiry as per the order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused i.e. the petitioner could not say whether signatures appearing in his name on the said agreement were his or not. As per the order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the cross-examination dated 08.07.2010, the complainant also stated that 34 lacs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n petition u/S 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. Without adverting to the merits or demerits of the submissions made in the application filed on behalf of the accused i.e. the petitioner of the present petition vide application dated 18.07.2013 made to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking that a handwriting expert be appointed and he be permitted to examine and submit the report in relation to Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, it is essential to observe that the said order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned MM (NI Act)-03/Dwarka in CC No. 6478/14 to the extent that it declined to allow the prayer made by the accused therein in the complaint case i.e. the petitioner in the present petition for examination of the documents Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B i.e. the agreement and the cheque in question cannot be termed to be an interlocutory order and rather though not conclusive of the main dispute is conclusive to the subordinate matter with which it deals. 11. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 to the effect:- 13. Ordinarily and generally the expression interlocutory order‟ has been understood and taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a particular aspect. It seems to, us that the term interlocutory order in s. 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 s. 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 s. 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 jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W1/A be sent to the hand writing expert for examination as to who had written the same, inasmuch as the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 by the learned Trial Court itself observed to the effect that the core issue was in relation to the agreement pertaining to sale of the property on one hand and the issuance of the cheque in question as security in relation to sale consideration to the complainant, qua which Ex. CW1/A was allegedly issued by the petitioner herein. 16. The CRL.M.C.193/16 is thus allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 03.10.2015 of the learned ASJ Dwarka Courts, New Delhi holding that the CRL.REV.NO.37/15 was not maintainable, is thus set aside with directions to the said Court/ successor Court to dispose of the said CRL.REV.NO.37/15 which assails the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned Trial Court, i.e., the MM concerned in CC no. 6478/14, on merits. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Revisional Court/ the Successor Court of the ASJ Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the said learned Court is directed to dispose of CR. NO. 37/15 filed by the petitioner thereof, i.e., the respondent to the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
