Delhi High Court Upholds Revision Petition Against Summoning Order

Court Rules Summoning Orders as Intermediate, Allowing Revisional Jurisdiction

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, has upheld the maintainability of a revision petition challenging the summoning of an accused, marking a pivotal interpretation of procedural law. The judgment, delivered on October 13, 2025, addressed the nature of orders under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, specifically under Section 397, concerning revisional jurisdiction.

The petitioner, referred to as 'X', contested an order by the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside a Magistrate's decision to summon an accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. This decision followed a police cancellation report in an FIR registered against the accused, identified as respondent no. 2, which the Magistrate had originally overruled to summon the accused based on prima facie evidence.

Central to the court's deliberation was whether the summoning order was interlocutory, and thus non-revisable, or intermediate, allowing for revision. The court ruled that such orders are intermediate or quasi-final, not interlocutory, thereby falling within the scope of revisional jurisdiction. This aligns with the Supreme Court's interpretations distinguishing final, intermediate, and interlocutory orders.

Justice Sharma emphasized that reversing a summoning order effectively terminates proceedings, thereby classifying it as intermediate. The court rejected contentions that future opportunities for discharge hearings under Section 239 Cr.P.C. influenced the order's classification, reaffirming that the potential to terminate proceedings defines its nature.

The judgment clarifies procedural ambiguities in criminal law, reinforcing that orders summoning an accused are subject to revision. This decision impacts future cases, ensuring that accused individuals have recourse through revisional petitions against summoning orders, a critical procedural right.

The case will return to court on February 7, 2026, for further arguments on its merits.

Bottom Line:

Revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging an order of cognizance and summoning an accused is maintainable as such an order is classified as an intermediate order and not an interlocutory one.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 397, 173, 239, 204, 240, 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

X v. State of NCT, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796449