Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.52 seconds)
Krishan Kumar vs State on 22 May, 2024 cites

Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

14. Order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and when it is reversed it does not result in the termination or culmination of proceedings against the accused. Appreciating the facts of this case, statues and in the backdrop of the above case laws it is evident that order u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory orders in so far as no right of accused pertaining to trial has been decided therein CR no. 1869/2024 CNR No.DLSW01-004251-2024 Page 7 of 8 Krishan Kumar Vs State and by virtue of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. no revision qua them can be filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 321 - D Verma - Full Document

Amarnath (Deceased) Thr. His Legal ... vs State Of Haryana Etc. on 28 January, 2015

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after discussing the Amarnath Judgment (Supra) in "Girish Kumar Suneja vs. CBI" Crl. Appeal no. 1137 of 2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2016 has held at para 17 that there are three categories of orders that a court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after discussing the Amarnath Judgment (Supra) in "Girish Kumar Suneja vs. CBI" Crl. Appeal no. 1137 of 2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2016 has held at para 17 that there are three categories of orders that a court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 736 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Mr. Situ Ramnath Shastri vs I. F. C. I. Factors Ltd on 30 August, 2022

M. A 4068/2022 decided on 04.04.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is held at para 17 that "no revision lies against dismissal of an application filed under Section 311 Cr.PC" and "Situ Ramnath Shastri vs I.F.C.I. Factors Ltd" in Crl. M.C 586/2021, Crl. M. A. 2931/2021, Crl. M.C.590/2021 and Crl. M.A. 2948/2021 decided on 30.08.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which it is mentioned at para 13 that "It is trite law that an order passed under Section 311 Cr.PC is purely an interlocutory order and a revision against an interlocutory order is clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.PC. Consequently, the revision petitions preferred before Ld. ASJ were not maintainable and thus, the present petitions filed against the final outcome of the said revision petitions are again not maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - R Bhatnagar - Full Document
1   2 Next