The High Court dismissed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 381/2020, holding it not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. against the interlocutory order rejecting a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application, relying on Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam.
Revision petition and stay application 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 381/2020
Mohini @ nisha
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
17/02/2022
This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Ajmer in Sessions Case No.55/2018, State of Rajasthan VS. Dinesh Rajawat, whereby application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been rejected.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General submits that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, reported in 2009 (5) SCC 153.
This court finds that the controversy has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman
[CRLR-381/2020]
(2 of 2)
Vs. Rajamanickam, reported in 2009 (5) SCC 153 , and it was held that the order passed on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order thus, revision petition preferred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. against the interlocutory order is not maintainable.
In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman (Supra) , this revision petition is not maintainable, hence, without going into merits of the case, the same is dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of the revision petition, the stay application, is any, also stands dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
CHHAYA AWASTHI /25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sethuraman Vs. RajamanickamApplied¶18
2009 (5) SCC 153 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohini @ nisha
State Of Rajasthan
UMA SHANKER VYAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
