M.S.NESARGI
T. KRISHNA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
K. SHYAMA RAO – Respondent
( 2 ) THE few necessary facts are that the said case was registered on a private complaint instituted on 21-6-1975. After the petitioners appeared in response to the summons issued to them i. e. , after the Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons, they raised a few contentions and one of them was that the complaint was not maintainable as there was already an appeal pending as against the order said to have been relied upon in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has rejected this contention.
( 3 ) FROM what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the order in question is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Sec. 397 (2) Criminal Procedure Code.
( 4 ) IT is also clear that no criminal revision petition could have been filed by the petitioners as Sec. 397 (2) Crlpc prevents, this Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in such matters. In order to circumvent this legal hurdle the petitioners ha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.