Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the impugned order cannot be said to be an
interlocutory order in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and
Others v. Uttam and Another [1999 (3) SCC 134]. In
the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even
an order of the Magistrate directing issuance of process
cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. Answer to the
question of law is contained in paragraph 6 of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that interlocutory order
means or denotes orders of purely interim or temporary
nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or
liabilities of the parties.
Gulabchand vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 10 December, 2003
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gulabchand
v. State of U.P [2004 Crl.L.J 2672], that an order passed
under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C without any material for
subjective satisfaction about likelihood of breach of peace, is
bad in law, and is amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Revti Raman Pandey And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 August, 2010
But in
2007, another Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court
decided otherwise in Revati Raman & Others v. State of
U.P. and Others [2007 (1) ALJ 448].
1