The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of prosecution applications regarding summoning witnesses, document production, and further investigation. The Court held the revision not maintainable as the order was interlocutory and found no illegality.
The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
Sr. No. 23
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode)
CRR No. 61/2016
Kavita
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
State of J&K and Anr.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Raja Mohit Bucha, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1. Mr. Rohan Nanda, Adv. for R-2.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER 02.02.2022
Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Samba, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed three applications filed by the prosecution, one under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C for summoning of the witnesses, the second filed under Section 94 Cr.P.C, seeking production of certain documents and the third one filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C, seeking directions for further investigation of the case.
No body has been appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the last few dates of hearing. Today also, no one has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the
impugned order and the grounds of revision.
The revision petition itself appears to be not maintainable for the reasons that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is interlocutory in nature and the revision petition against such an order is legally barred in view of the provisions contained under Section 435(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr.PC. Even otherwise, I do not find any material illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
The Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge
Jammu 02.02.2022 Surinder
SURINDER KUMAR 2022.02.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the dismissal of prosecution applications is maintainable against an interlocutory order.
Whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any material illegality or impropriety.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Kavita
State of J&K
Sanjay Dhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
