Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Rajeev Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioner-Rajeev Sharma has filed the present revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’) against the orders dated 05.02.2024 and 30.03.2024, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Case No.55-I-14 RBT 41-I-2019, titled as Rajeev Sharma versus Pradeep Kumar.
2. By way of order dated 05.02.2024, Cr.MA No.267 of 2016, i.e. application, filed by respondent Pradeep Kumar, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been allowed, and Cr.MA No.169 of 2024 i.e. application, filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC, has been dismissed, by the learned trial Court. The order, by way of which, application, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been allowed, is being challenged before this Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, before this Court, may be summed up, as under
The court clarified that an order allowing expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is an intermediate order affecting rights, not merely interlocutory, and the court cannot collect eviden....
An order under section 205 of the Code refusing the application for dispensing with personal appearance of the accused is an interlocutory order and while so a revision against that order is barred u....
It seems well settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the....
Section 397 empowers Court of Sessions or even this Court to examine record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court against closure of any proceeding.
Order framing charges is interlocutory, not final or appealable under Section 14A of SC&ST Act, as it neither terminates proceedings nor decides parties' rights conclusively; alternative remedies ava....
Interlocutory orders do not determine rights or liabilities and are not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC, emphasizing the distinction between interlocutory and intermediate orders.
The Magistrate has the discretion to decide whether to take cognizance of the offence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
