Shomik Mukherjee vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 28 August, 2020
Reference in this regard is drawn to para 6 of the said
judgment;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)Documents citing
Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017
9) Bhogendra Jha vs )The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 October, 2020
Further, in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddhartha Wadhwa &
Anr. judgment dated 10.01.2017 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1253/2016, also
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held in categorical
terms that an order dismissing or allowing an application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision
petition against the same is maintainable. Therefore, the reliance
placed by Sh. Ravi Kumar on the cited judgments in this regard is
misplaced and is not meritorious.
Nanda Kishore Mallik vs State Of Nct on 8 December, 2020
13. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 observed at para 13 : "13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable."
Pawanjit Singh Bawa vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Another on 15 December, 2020
that though the FIR was directed to be registered against the alleged
offences in question but as to who was the offender was the matter of
investigation and that it was pointed by the learned Revisional Court
that the Court had not considered whether the allegations in the
complaint were true or false and it was only after registration of the
matter that the police could conduct the investigation in the matter.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said
order in as much as the complaint made in CC No. 2690/2019 was
against the petitioner and thus the petitioner in terms of the verdict of
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nishu Wadhwa V. Siddharth
Wadhwa, a decision dated 10.1.2017 in W.P.(CRL) 1250/2016
submitting to the effect that an order under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. is not in the nature of an interlocutory order and can be
challenged by the affected person. It is submitted to the effect also
that even the affected accused can challenge the same on the said
premise.
1