The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of interlocutory orders and their maintainability under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 th