Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.36 seconds)Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
And Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999
Cri LJ 1620). The feasible test is whether by upholding
the objections raised by a party, it would result in
culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on
such objections would not be merely interlocutory in
nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the
present case, if the objections raised by the appellants
were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution
proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per
the said standard, the order was revisable.***
Hindustan Cables Ltd. And Ors. vs The State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 12 March, 2008
17. Thirdly, the principles of law laid down in case
M/s Hindustan Cables Ltd. and others v. State Govt. of NCT
of Delhi and others, (supra), are applicable on the facts of
present case and therefore the relief prayed by revisionist
C.R. No.130/11 Preeti Gupta v. Chirag Garg Page 8 of 9
can only be granted by Delhi High Court.
Vardhman Stamping Private Limited vs Imp Power Limited And 4 Ors. on 11 September, 2006
15. On considering the rival contentions of counsels
for parties in the light of above referred decisions, I come
to the conclusion that summoning order/impugned order is
an interlocutory order as held in cases Vardhman
Stamping Pvt. Ltd. v. IMP Power Ltd., (Gujarat), (supra),
and Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and
Apparels Ltd., (supra), therefore, revision is not
maintainable as per provisions of Section 397 (2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Kamana Gupta vs N.C.T. Of Delhi on 29 March, 2001
10. Counsel for revisionist further relied on a case
Kamana Gupta v. N.C.T. of Delhi, 2001(2)JCC61 wherein
the Delhi High Court set aside the summoning order and
observed that:
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
"28. A question as to whether a magistrate after issuing
process could recall it. It is now settled in Adalat Prasad v.
Rooplal Jindal (supra), that he cannot recall the process.
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
The Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State
of Maharashtra (supra), held that the only course available
to an aggrieved person to challenge the issuance of
C.R. No.130/11 Preeti Gupta v. Chirag Garg Page 5 of 9
process under S.204 is by way of a petition under S.482
Cr.P.C."
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
9. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Madhu Limaye v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1977) 4 SCC
551 : (1978 Cri LJ 165); laid down the following test :
"An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a
point which, when accepted; will conclude the
particular proceeding, will surely be not an
interlocutory order within the meaning of Section
397(2).
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979
This was upheld by the four Judge Bench of this
Court in V. C. Shukla v. State through C. B. I., AIR
1980 SC 962 : 1980 Suppl SCC 92 : (1980 Cri LJ 690).
K.K. Patel And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 12 May, 2000
Again in K. K. Patel v. State of Gujarat
(2000) 6 SCC 195 : (2000 Cri LJ 4592); this Court
stated thus (para 12 of Cri LJ) :