Delhi High Court: Order That Doesn’t Conclusively Decide A Case Or Any Substantial Rights Of Parties Is Interlocutory In Nature; Barred From Revision U/s. 397(2) CrPC
The Delhi High Court held that the order for preservation of CDRs was interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to revision.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that if an order does not conclusively decide the case or any substantial right of the parties, it is interlocutory in nature and thus, barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC.
The Court dismissed the Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the CrPC by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Trial Court’s Order directing the preservation of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location data of CBI officials and independent witnesses. The Court held that the Order was interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh explained, “Furthermore, applying the test of finality, the impugned order does not bring the criminal proceedings to an end or determine any significant right of the parties. The prosecution/petitioner herein remains unaffected in its ability to proceed with the case, and the respondent‟s request merely preserves a category of evidence without disrupting the investigation. Since the order is procedural and interlocutory in nature, its reversal would not terminate the proceedings. Therefore, it is barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, rendering the present revision petition not maintainable.”
SPP Ravi Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Tushar Agarwal appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The complainant had alleged that the Respondent, a Junior Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), along with co-accused, demanded a bribe for allowing him to store construction materials outside his shop.
During the trial, the Respondent filed an application under Section 207 read with Section 91 of the CrPC, seeking preservation of CDRs and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses. The Trial Court allowed the Application holding that the preservation of such records was necessary to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial. The CBI challenged this Order before the Delhi High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained that the impugned Order merely directed for the preservation of CDRs and location charts to ensure that such data was available if required at a later stage. It did not grant immediate access to the records, nor did it alter the prosecution‟s case in any manner.
“The order only safeguards potential evidence from automatic deletion, and the respondent would still have to seek permission from the Court at the appropriate stage to access these records. There is no element of finality in the order, as it neither adjudicates upon the guilt or innocence of the accused nor conclusively affects the prosecution‟s ability to conduct the trial,” the Court clarified.
The Bench emphasised, “From the collective analysis of legal definitions and judicial pronouncements, it is evident that an interlocutory order is one that does not finally determine the rights of the parties and merely address a procedural or interim aspect necessary for the progression of the case. Such an order does not bring the proceedings to a conclusion, rather, it operates as a temporary or interim measure that facilitates the trial process.”
“The primary test to determine whether an order is interlocutory is whether, if reversed, it would terminate the proceedings. If the order does not conclusively decide the case or any substantial right of the parties, it is interlocutory in nature and thus, barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Since the revision petition has been found to be not maintainable under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, a detailed examination of the legality of the impugned order dated 12th July, 2023 is not necessary.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Neeraj Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1405)
Appearance:
Petitioner: SPP Ravi Sharma; Advocates Swapnil Choudhary, Ishann Bhardwaj, Sagar and Madhulika Raj Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Tushar Agarwal, Naveen Kumar, Arun Kumar, Abhiswhek Mahal and Tripti Roy
