CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD
Md. Rafique Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.
1. Whether an order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable under the revisional jurisdiction is a vexed question of law which on several occasions had been the subject matter of adjudication and the present one is one such occasion. As answer to this question has far reaching consequence, I prefer to analyse the same in little detail.
2. Aforesaid question arises on a simple background, i.e. the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, inter alia, alleging commission of offence u/s. 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and after an inquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, by order dated 12.12.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 798 (C) of 2004, being prima facie satisfied that offence u/s. 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, took cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2005 before the Sess
Adalat Prasad V/s. Rooplal Zindal And Ors.
Amar Nath And Ors. V/s. State Of Haryana And Ors.
Madhu Limaye V/s. The State Of Maharashtra
Birendra Narayan Choudhary V/s. State Of Bihar & Ghuran Paswan
Chandra Kumar Singh V/s. State And Anr.
Shruti Enterprises Ltd. V/s. State Of Bihar And Ors.
Smt. Bacha Devi @ Bacha Dai Devi. V/s. The State Of Bihar And Anr.
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.