SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Pat) 295

BINOD KUMAR ROY, SACHCHIDANAND JHA, NAGENDRA RAI, N.PANDEY, B.N.AGRAWAL
Surendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

N.P.SINGH, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, dismissing the criminal revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners. That revision application had been filed on behalf of the petitioners under S. 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for setting aside an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, converting a proceeding u/S. 144 of the Code into one u/S.145 of the Code.

2. It appears that the petitioners first filed a criminal miscellaneous application u/S.482 of the Code which was listed for admission before a learned Judge of this Court. The learned Judge was of the opinion that as the petitioners had already filed a criminal revision application before the Sessions Judge, it was not open to them to invoke the inherent power of this Court u/S. 482 of the Code far quashing of the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate aforesaid, in view of S. 397(3) of the Code which bars second revision application before this Court. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top