An order summoning an accused is an intermediate order and is subject to revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., as it affects substantive rights.

1. The petitioner-complainant has challenged, by way of present petition, the order dated 27.05.2019 [hereafter ‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Sessions Court’] in CR No. 204631/2016 wherein the learned Sessions Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Mahila Court, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Magistrate’], taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354 /354(D)/323/342/509/365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘ IPC ’] against the accused i.e. respondent 2 herein and summoning him, despite a cancellation report having been filed by the police authorities qua him, in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 151/2014, registered at Police Station CR Park, Delhi for the commission of aforesaid offences.

2. This judgment, however, is confined to deciding the maintainability of the revision petition filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘ Cr.P.C .’] before learned Sessions Court, impugning the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate.

3. At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly recapitulate the factual background in which the present proceedings have arisen. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that she had met the accused/respondent no. 2 while both were students at a university in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. They are stated to have entered into a close relationship which continued for about two years. Thereafter, as alleged, the relationship soured since respondent no. 2 began to avoid the petitioner on the pretext that she used to converse with other male students. It is further alleged that an altercation took place between the two within the university premises, which prompted the petitioner to lodge complaints against respondent no. 2 – first with the university authorities, and thereafter before P.S. Sector-39, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, as well as before P.S. Chittaranjan Park, Delhi. The latter ultimately resulted in the registration of the FIR in question.

4. During investigation of the said FIR, the police did not find sufficient material connecting respondent no. 2 with the alleged offences. Consequently, a cancellation report was filed before the learned Magistrate. Upon such filing, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner for submission of a protest petition, but the petitioner initially did not raise any objection to the cancellation report. Subsequently, however, she opposed the cancellation report.

5. Eventually, the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354 /354(D)/323/342/509/365 of IPC against the respondent no. 2 and issue summons to him.

6. It was against the aforesaid order that the respondent no. 2 had preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C . before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be allowed vide impugned order dated 27.05.2019, holding that no case was made out against respondent no. 2 for commission of the alleged offences.

7. The issue of maintainability of revision petition before the learned Sessions Court was highlighted by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in order dated 12.09.2024, which is set out below:

“1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed erroneously relying upon the judgments which are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

2. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) held that the order taking cognizance is not interlocutory in nature by