Petitioner sought to set aside orders dismissing his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to cross-examine the complainant after failing to file a timely Section 145(2) application. The High Court held the petition was an attempt to circumvent the closed right and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~26
MR SYED MANOWER MOHSIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hari Shanker, Advocate.
versus
MAY AND BAKER PHARMACEUTICAL LTD .....Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
%
O R D E R 23.08.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:25:32
rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C is interlocutory under revision is not maintainable.
4. Submissions heard.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
AUGUST 23, 2024 rk
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:25:32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the petitioner's Section 311 Cr.P.C. application for cross-examining the complainant after the Section 145(2) application was closed for d
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Syed Manower Mohsin
May and Baker Pharmaceutical Ltd
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
