Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.45 seconds)
Md. Mustafa @ Mustafa And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 16 September, 2005 cites

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

10. More or less in a similar situation as in the present case, in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal where an accused after issuance of summons against him by the trial Magistrate, filed an application purported to be under Section 204 Cr PC before the Magistrate for recall of the summons and the Magistrate after hearing the parties, recalled the said summons the said order of the Magistrate recalling summons was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall said summon. The High Court allowed the revision application and, thereafter, the matter went to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

11. The Supreme Court thereafter in a recent decision in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 242 held that "the issuance of process under Section 203 Cr PC is a preliminary step in the stage of trial contemplated in Chapter XX Cr PC. Such an order made at a preliminary stage being an interlocutory order, the same cannot be reviewed or reconsidered by the Magistrate, there being no provision under Cr PC for review of an order by the same Court. Hence, it is impermissible for the Magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process in the absence of any specific provision to recall such order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 266 - Full Document
1   2 Next