The Delhi High Court recently provided a clear understanding of the difference between 'interlocutory' and 'intermediate' orders in the context of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which restricts the revision of interlocutory orders.
Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court explained:
“Basically, a judicial order passed by a criminal court can be either Final Order or Intermediate Order or Interlocutory Order. So far as final order is concerned, there can be no difficulty in the sense that an order of discharge or acquittal or conviction is a final order.”
Read also: Delhi High Court Reschedules Shahdara Bar Association Elections to May 24
He emphasized that the challenge lies in distinguishing between 'interlocutory' and 'intermediate' orders, a distinction crucial for understanding the statutory bar under Section 397(2) CrPC. This bar is intended to limit the revisional powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court.
- Amar Nath & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others (1977)
The Supreme Court defined an 'interlocutory order' as one that does not determine the rights or liabilities of the parties. - Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra (1977)
The Court clarified that an 'intermediate order' is one that is interlocutory in nature but may lead to a final order if reversed. It stated: “An intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.” - K.K. Patel & Anr vs State Of Gujarat (2000)
This case highlighted the test for identifying an 'intermediate order' by examining if sustaining an objection would end the proceedings.
Read also: Amazon Challenges ₹339.25 Crore Trademark Infringement Order by Delhi High Court
Case Background
In the present case, the Petitioner, who was a respondent in a cheque bounce case, sought the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to challenge the rejection of their revision petition. This petition was against the trial court's dismissal of their application under Section 311 CrPC, which sought to summon records related to the opposite party.
The High Court held that the Section 311 application, even if allowed, would not have ended the prosecution. Instead, it would have led to further prosecution with the summoned records being produced.
“That being so, order dated 20.11.2023 was clearly an interlocutory order as held by the learned revisional court…” the Court concluded, dismissing the plea.
Read also: Delhi High Court Questions Application of UAPA in 2023 Parliament Security Breach Case
This ruling provides a clear guideline on how to differentiate between 'interlocutory' and 'intermediate' orders, helping legal practitioners understand their maintainability under Section 397 CrPC.
Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Kajla, Advocate for Petitioner
Case title: Dilshad Hussain v. Pushpa Devi
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 3080/2025
