X v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
CRL.M.C. 4267/2019
Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
In this judgment, the Delhi High Court dealt with a narrow but significant question of law whether a summoning order passed by a Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC, based on a police report under Section 173(2), constitutes an interlocutory order and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The case arose from a criminal dispute between a woman complainant (petitioner) and the accused (respondent no. 2), who were former university classmates and had been in a close relationship. When their relationship deteriorated, the petitioner alleged harassment and assault, resulting in registration of FIR at P.S. Chittaranjan Park, Delhi, for offences under Sections 354, 354D, 323, 342, 509, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
After the investigation, the police filed a cancellation report, finding no evidence against the accused. The petitioner was allowed to file a protest petition but did not initially object; she later opposed the report. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) took cognisance of the offences and issued a summons to the accused.
The accused challenged the summoning order before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Saket Courts, through a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, arguing that the order was unsustainable as it ignored the cancellation report and lacked material evidence. The Sessions Court agreed and set aside the Magistrate’s order on 27th May 2019.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the legality and maintainability of the revision petition itself.
The petitioner argued that the summoning order was interlocutory and, therefore, not reviewable under Section 397(2) CrPC. She contended that such an order was only a preliminary procedural step in a warrant case instituted on a police report and did not affect any substantive rights. The accused still had a later opportunity to seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC, making the summoning order merely interlocutory. The petitioner also argued that precedents relied on by the Sessions Court applied to complaint cases under Sections 200–204 CrPC, not to police report cases, and thus were inapplicable.
The respondent-accused argued that the summoning order was not interlocutory but an intermediate order, which directly affected his valuable rights since it subjected him to criminal prosecution despite a police cancellation report. He cited several Supreme Court decisions holding that an order taking cognisance and summoning an accused is reviewable. The respondent further submitted that since the Magistrate ignored the cancellation report without proper reasoning and without a protest petition, the Sessions Court rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma examined the scope of Section 397 CrPC, which confers revisional powers on the High Court and Sessions Court but expressly bars revisions against interlocutory orders under sub-section (2).
The Court held that a summoning order is an intermediate order, as its reversal would terminate the proceedings against the accused. The fact that the accused could later seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC did not make the order interlocutory, since classification depends on the immediate legal effect of the order, not future opportunities for defence.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s attempt to differentiate between complaint cases and police report cases, observing that Section 204 CrPC, which governs the issuance of process, applies uniformly to both summons and warrant cases. Judicial precedents make no such distinction.
Further, in this case, the Magistrate’s decision to summon the accused despite a cancellation report filed by the police, and without a formal protest petition from the complainant, significantly affected the accused’s rights. The act of subjecting an individual to criminal proceedings after police exoneration was a “matter of moment,” not a mere procedural step.
Therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in entertaining and deciding the revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. The petitioner’s challenge was thus dismissed, and the Court directed that the matter be listed on 7th February 2026 for arguments on the merits of the case.
