Magistrate’s Summoning Order Despite Cancellation Report Is Intermediate Order; Revision Petition Is Maintainable: Delhi High Court

The Petitioner complainant had approached the High Court challenging the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court setting aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 323, 342, 509, 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused (second respondent) and summoning him, despite a cancellation report having been filed by the police authorities.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asserted, “Accordingly, this Court is of the view that in circumstances such as the present, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process despite the filing of a cancellation report by the police, the order cannot by any means be termed interlocutory.Moreover, in light of the test laid down by the Supreme Court, the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is an intermediate order, which if reversed, has the effect of terminating the entire criminal proceedings.”

It further held, “Such an order, therefore, falls within the ambit of scrutiny by a revisional court and thus, the respondent no. 2 was not barred from filing a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court.”

Factual Background

It was the petitioner’s case that she had met the accused/respondent while both were students at a university. They allegedly entered into a close relationship which continued for about two years. Thereafter, as alleged, the relationship soured and an altercation took place between the two within the university premises, which prompted the petitioner to lodge complaints against the respondent. During the investigation of the said FIR, the police did not find sufficient material connecting the respondent with the alleged offences. Consequently, a cancellation report was filed before the Magistrate. Upon such filing, the 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, she opposed the cancellation report.

Eventually, the Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354,354(D),323, 342, 509,365 of the IPC against the second respondent and issue summons to him. It was against the aforesaid order that the second respondent had preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed vide the impugned order holding that no case was made out against the second respondent for the commission of the alleged offences.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reaffirmed that there are three kinds of orders which a Court may pass, i.e., final orders, intermediate orders, and interlocutory orders. The final orders are those orders which conclusively decide the rights of the parties, leaving nothing further to be adjudicated, and interlocutory orders are those which are purely temporary or procedural orders which do not touch upon or decide the substantive rights or liabilities of the parties. A revision petition against such orders is barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

The Bench further explained that intermediate orders are orders which fall between the above two categories. Though interlocutory in form, they assume the character of finality if reversed. “The crucial test is whether the reversal of such an order would bring the proceedings to an end. Thus, while purely interlocutory orders cannot be assailed by way of revision petitions, final and intermediate orders fall within the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Court”, it added.

On the issue of whether an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning the accused passed by the Magistrate is an interlocutory order or not, the Bench reiterated the settled view of the Apex Court that such an order is not interlocutory in nature and it falls within the category of intermediate or quasi-final orders, and therefore can be assailed by way of a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

“Thus, it can be concluded that an order of a Magistrate issuing process or summoning an accused under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. does not fall within the bar of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Such an order is intermediate or quasi-final in nature, and therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Court or the High Court”, it stated while adding, “The classification of an order as final, interlocutory, or intermediate is not dependent upon the possibility of a future opportunity of hearing. The test for an interlocutory order is whether reversal of such order would result in culmination of proceedings; if yes, then the order is not interlocutory. It is for this reason that an order issuing process/summons is treated as an intermediate order – since if the same is reversed by a higher court, the inevitable consequence is termination of the criminal proceedings against the accused. The present case is also an illustration of the same, since when the summoning order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by respondent no. 2 before the learned Sessions Court and was set aside, the entire proceedings against him were nullified.”

Thus, rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner qua the maintainability of revision petition filed by the second respondent before the Sessions Court, the Bench listed the matter on February 7, 2026 for arguments.

Cause Title: X v. State of NCT (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9142)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Sahil Gupta, Mohd. Ranu

Respondent: APP Manoj Pant, SI Neetu, Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal, Advocates B. S. Jakhar, Vikram Singh Jakhar, Bhawna Jakhar, Neeraj Jakhar, Viraj Rathee, Nikhil Beniwal

Click here to read/download Order