Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenged an order on charge. The State objected that the order was revisable under Section 401 CrPC. Counsel sought liberty to withdraw and refile by way of revision; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty.
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.
$~79
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R % 18.01.2024
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JANUARY 18, 2024 “SS”
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 21/05/2024 at 15:10:11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC was the appropriate route to challenge an interlocutory order on charge, or whether revision under Section 401 applied?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Himanshu
State of NCT of Delhi
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
