1. The Division Bench of this court ruled in case S.K. Mahajan vs. Municipality Jammu and others (1982 KLJ 439) that the bar created by sub-section (4-a) of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted where an order of framing the charge is challenged under the revisional jurisdiction of the court. The court ruled that the bar would get attracted where the challenge to the order of framing the charge is based upon the merits of the main controversy, namely whether or not the accused has been found guilty of the offence charged. It came to be further held in this case that said bar (of sub-section (4-a) of Section 435) would not be attracted and the court would be competent to revise the order of framing a charge in case the challenge to the order is based upon the plea which is independent of the main controversy and which if accepted would conclude the proceedings against the accused.

2. Yet again in case AN Ahanger vs. State and Ors. 1986 J&K Law Reporter, 688 the court held that an order of framing the charges is purely an interlocutory order and is not open to interference in the revisional jurisdiction, as the purpose of framing a charge is only to pave t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document