Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.K. Patel And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 12 May, 2000
In this
regard, a reference may be made to Bhaskar
Industries Ltd. Vs Bhiwani Denim and Apparels
Ltd. , (2001) 7 SCC 401: (2001 Cri LJ 4250); K. K.
Patel Vs State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195:
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
(2000 Cri LJ 4592) and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram
Pande Vs Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134: (1999 Cri LJ
1620). According to the view taken by the
Supreme Court, the term "Interlocutory order" is
to be 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
decide or touch the important rights of the
liabilities of the parties.
Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977
The aforementioned view
has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Amar Nath Vs State of Haryana, (1977) 4
SCC 137: (1977 Cri LJ 1891). At the same time, it
:5:
has also been observed that it is not possible to
make a catalogue or orders which may fall within
the expression of interlocutory orders. The only
test devised by the Supreme Court is to determine
whether criminal proceedings as a whole would be
culminated. If the aforementioned test is applied
to the facts of the present case, then the order
passed under Section 311 of the Code of would
necessarily be an interlocutory order convered by
Section 397 (2) of the Code.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 31 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Smt.Sanjay Lata & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 4 September, 2009
In a judgment titled as Sanjay and
another Vs State of Haryana and another Reported as 2005 CRI. L. J.
287, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under:
"After hearing the learned counsel, I have reached
:4:
at the conclusion that the instant petition is not
maintainable as it is directed against an
interlocutory order. Under Section 397(2) read
with Section 401, there is a specific bar for
exercise of revisional powers against an
interlocutory order. The question whether a
particular order would fall within the expression
interlocutory order has been considered by the
Supreme Court in numerous judgments.