The court clarified the meaning of interlocutory order and emphasized the necessity of the petitioner's personal appearance for interrogation due to the serious nature of the allegations against him.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred as ‘ASJ’), South, Saket Courts, whereby the revision petition titled “Vikram Awasty v. State” Crl. Rev. No. 8356/2016 and also order dated 06.08.2016 whereby the learned ACMM declined to cancel the Open Non-Bailable Warrants.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant/Hassad Food Company lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 03.12.2014 at PS EOW, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant is a company based in Netherland who on misrepresentation made by the petitioner and the Standard Chartered Pvt. Equity Limited (I) & (II) (SCPE), in the financial accounts and with regard to the level of stock of his company (worth approx. Rs.800 crores), was induced to invest in his company approximately to the tune of Rs.750 crores. The complainant acquired 69.5% of the share of the petitioner’s company. The petitioner also availed various loan facilities from Consortium of Banks as working capital loans, packing credit and to build a raw material inventory. Later when Deloitte Haskins and Sells (Deloitte) submitted its incomplete audit report in the year 2013 stating the reason to be ‘lack of details of actual inventory, not being allowed to access the sites, non cooperation and lack of transparency and further, the default in repaying the credit facilities to the creditors’, that the suspicion was created in the mind of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant appointed Dr. Amin Controllers Private Limited(Surveyor) to verify the inventory who after investigation revealed that only stock of rice/inventory worth 3-5 million (INR 50 crores) was available in the warehouse of the company whereas substantial bags were filled with husk and wooden pallets to give an impression that the warehouse was filled with stocks. The complainant filed a complaint on account of being defrauded by the petitioner. The petitioner joined the investigation in the year 2015 and thereafter during the pendency of the investigation he shifted to UK and failed to join the investigation and NBWs were issued against him by the Trial Court. The order dated 06.08.2016 was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition in the court of learned ASJ who further dismissed it on the ground of maintainability of revision against an interlocutory order. Hence, the present petition.

3. Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned ACMM had erred in dismissing the application seeking cancellation of NBWs as the order passed on 06.08.2016 is an interlocutory order; that the issuance of NBWs was challenged by the petitioner by moving an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed on 06.08.2016; that the issuance of NBWs against the petitioner by the concerned court was not communicated to him by the Investigating Officer; that only documentary evidence is required to proceed with the investigation, therefore, the presence of the petitioner is not required; that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required; that the petitioner has been participating in the investigation and he has been interrogated in detail for 10 hours by EOW and submitted 5000 pages dossier to the EOW; that the medical condition of the petitioner does not allow him to travel; that the petitioner undertakes to join the further investigation through video-conferencing.

4. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments namely Amar Nath v. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar reported in (2000) 10 SCC 438, State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai reported in (2003) 4 SCC 601, Prem Cashew Ind