Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Parmeshwari Devi vs State And Anr on 23 November, 1976
In the case of
Page 5 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.265/16
Parmeshwari Devi (supra) there was a third person to litigation, whose
rights were found to be severely affected and hence, revision was found
to be maintainable.
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
B.S.Rana vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 29 May, 2014
4. Arguments were invited from ld. Special PP to explain the maintainability
of this petition apart from merits of the case because ld. Special PP
pressed hard for stay of the operation of the impugned order. Ld. Special
PP for the State submitted that the impugned order does not fall into the
category of interlocutory order as ld. ACMM acted beyond the jurisdiction
conferred upon him and he made observations regarding the investigation
done in the case thereby affecting the rights of IO as well as investigating
agency. Ld. Special PP for the State relied upon the judgments passed in
the case of Parmeshwari Devi v. State and Anr., 1977 AIR 403 SC,
Mohit @ Sonu and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0633/2013
and B.S. Rana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Crl. M.C. No.3587/13
decided on 29.05.2014.