The High Court held that a criminal revision against an interim order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedents that settled the issue as no longer res integra.
The criminal revision case is dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1818 OF 2017
ORDER:
This criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed challenging the order dated 22.05.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2017 in C.C. No.858 of 2010 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The only question before this court is about maintainability of the revision against the order in a petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., since it is an interim order.
This question is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Apex Court in S ethuraman v. Rajamanickam1 and another judgment in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And
Another2 .
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, no further enquiry need be required in this matter. Hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.
16.08.2017 BV
1 2009 Crl.L.J 2247
2 AIR 1991 SC page 1346
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision can be maintained against an interim order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sethuraman v. RajamanickamExplained¶6
Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 Crl.L.J 2247
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union Of India and AnotherExplained¶6
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another, AIR 1991 SC page 1346 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
