Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 131 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017

Mamta Nagpal vs State Of Delhi & Ors. on 3 March, 2023

21. This Court, in the case of Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddarth Wadhwa and Anr. (supra) relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited And Another : (2009) 2 SCC 363 and other judgments, categorically came to the conclusion that the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code is in the nature of a final order terminating the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code and the same is revisable under the revisional powers of the Sessions Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:17.03.2023 CRL.REV.P. 380/2022 Page 12 of 19 13:04:52 Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:1921 Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mamta Nagpal vs State Of Gnctd Delhi & Ors. on 3 March, 2023

21. This Court, in the case of Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddarth Wadhwa and Anr. (supra) relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited And Another : (2009) 2 SCC 363 and other judgments, categorically came to the conclusion that the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code is in the nature of a final order terminating the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code and the same is revisable under the revisional powers of the Sessions Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re vs State on 20 August, 2022

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of record, at the outset I find that the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 cannot be sustained in law. First thing first, a direction passed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR is not an "interlocutory order" and the decision to such effect in Father Thomas v State (Supra) was not accepted by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court in the cited case titled Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr. (Supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Pushpa Chaudhary vs State on 6 April, 2023

15. A careful reading of the aforesaid dictum would show that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked when a decision under challenge is grossly erroneous and the judicial discretion is exercised in an arbitrary manner thereby resulting in gross miscarriage of justice or patent illegality. That being the legal provision, the issue in the instant case is :whether or not an order passed under Section 156(3) read with section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is an 'interlocutory order' and whether no revision is permissible? The issue was directly answered in the cited case of Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa (supra) by the Hon'ble Judge, High Court of Delhi, wherein it was categorically held that term 'interlocutory' in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not Criminal Revision No625/2022 Pushpa Chaudhary v. State & Anr. Page 11 of 26 decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. It was categorically held that "an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to Criminal Revision by the prospective accused, or as the case may be, by a person who is suspected of having committed the crime since it goes without saying that disposing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with permission under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. amounts to adjudication of valuable rights whether in favour of the accused or against the complainant or vice­versa". It was further held that "in case the aggrieved person happens to be a prospective accused, it is but inevitable that once an order is passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in conjunction with 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation, the police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrant for allegations of having committed a cognizable offence and in the said situation fundamental right and liberty of the said person are inevitably affected, and thus it cannot be said that such orders are in the nature of an interim or temporary orders".
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 6 June, 2022

13. Secondly, in so far as plea by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the impugned order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an "interlocutory order" and criminal revision does not lie, I am afraid the same cannot be sustained, in view of decision by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the cited case of Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddarth Wadhwa & Anr. (supra), in which it was categorically held that order dismissing or allowing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and revision petition against the same is maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelam @ Leela vs State on 7 April, 2018

5.) In view of the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusing the material on record and Trial court record, I am of the view that so far as contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that present petition is not maintainable, same is unfounded due to the reason that by dismissing or allowing an application U/s 156(3) CrPC, it amounts to adjudication of a valuable right in favour of accused or the complainant. Such order are in the nature of final order terminating the proceedings which would be revisable under the revisional power of Sessions Court or the Hon'ble High Court. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble High court Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Sidharth Wadhwa Anr. W.P. (CRL.) 1253/2016 where it was held that:-
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punkaj Jain (Since Deceased) vs Amazon India Pvt Ltd on 16 February, 2021

13. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 observed at para Crl Rev. No.637/2018 Punkaj Jain Vs Amazon India Pvt Ltd Page No. 7 of 11 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2021.02.16 14:51:03 +0530 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."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next