This High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against an order allowing a petition to reopen a case under section 294 Cr.P.C., holding it to be an interlocutory order barred by section 397, relying on Seturaman v/s. Raja Manikyam.
The criminal revision case was dismissed as non-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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY THE THIRTETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M . SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 2182 OF 2017
Between:
Somishetty Gangaram … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Telangana
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court of Judicature for the State of
Telangana & Andhra Pradesh
Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Anandam
Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor [TG]
The court made the following: [order follows]
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M . SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 2182 OF 2017
O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under section 397 and 401
of Cr.P.C., questioning the propriety and legality of the order passed in
Crl.MP.Nos.1509 of 2017 in CC.No. 293 of 2015 passed by the XII
Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 16/6/2017, allowing the petitions
filed by the second respondent herein under section 294 of Cr.P.C., on
various grounds.
documents; namely, authorisation letter dated 23/3/2014 and partition
deed dated 19/9/1996, the said petition was allowed assigning reasons
by the trial court and the order is now under challenge in the present criminal revision.
the Revision against the order under section 294 and 311 of Cr.P.C., as it
3
is an interlocutory in nature and in view of the bar under section 397 [2]
of Cr.P.C. This question is no more res integra in SETURAMAN
V/s. RAJA MANIKYAM1 . Therefore, the order under challenge is
interlocutory in nature and consequently no revision is maintainable.
Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed .
_______________________________________
JUSTICE M . SATYANARAYANA MURTHY.
30/08/2017 I s L
4
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2182 OF 2017
{ DISMISSED }
Date: 30/08/2017 Circulation No. 262 Court Master : I s L
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an order allowing a petition under section 294 of Cr.P.C. to reopen a case
Whether section 397 of Cr.P.C. bars revision against an interlocutory order
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SETURAMAN v/s. RAJA MANIKYAMDistinguished¶26
SETURAMAN v/s. RAJA MANIKYAM
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Somishetty Gangaram
State of Telangana
High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad
Second Respondent
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
