Interlocutory orders do not determine rights or liabilities and are not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC, emphasizing the distinction between interlocutory and intermediate orders.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of this petition, brought under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC), the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned trial court in proceedings titled Pushpa Devi vs Dilshad Hussain under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed; and order dated 20.03.2025 of learned Court of Sessions in proceedings under Section 397 CrPC, refusing to interfere. Having heard, learned counsel for petitioner, I find it not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this court in order to interfere with the impugned orders.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petition are as follows.

2.1 The petitioner, facing trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act filed an application under Section 311 CrPC before the Trial Court, seeking to summon records of another proceedings, titled Pushpa Devi vs Lucky Singh Siddhu under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that the said records would establish falsity of the case of the complainant. The application was strongly opposed by the counsel for complainant (respondent herein), contending that the application was a dilatory tactic and not maintainable since the record sought to be summoned pertained to different complaint case filed against different accused and pertained to different cheques. Further, it was contended on behalf of the present respondent that the present petitioner had not disclosed the reason to summon the said record. After referring to the judicial precedents flowing from the Supreme Court, the learned trial magistrate dismissed the application vide order dated 20.11.2023, observing that the present petitioner had not disclosed the reason as to why he wanted to summon those records and how those records are relevant in the present case.

2.2 The said order dated 20.11.2023 of the trial court was challenged by the present petitioner by way of revision proceedings before the learned  Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by way of order dated 20.03.2025 dismissed the revision petition, refusing to interfere after detailed discussion, holding the impugned order as an interlocutory order in the light of plethora of judicial pronouncements.

2.3 Hence, the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this court to interfere and set aside both the above mentioned orders of the learned trial court and the learned revisional court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that denial of opportunity to summon the records of the case titled Pushpa Devi vs Lucky Singh Siddhu would seriously prejudice defence of the petitioner, so the application under Section 311 CrPC ought to have been allowed. As regards the impugned order of the revisional court, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgments titled Honnaiah T.H. vs State of Karnataka & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1001 and Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine 1086.

4. For the sake of ready reference, the provision under Section 438, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is quoted as follows:

“438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision – (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may 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 his own bond or bail 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 Ju