Venkatesh, J.-Since an important question of law is involved in these petitions, the same have been referred to the Division Bench by Nesargi, J. The question of law involved is whether the impugned orders are “interlocutory orders” as contemplated tinder section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and therefore the revision in question are barred?

2. The facts that gave rise to these petitions briefly stated are these:

3. These petitions have been filed under section 397(1) of the Code.

4. Cr.R.P. No. 205 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Cr. Misc. No. 24 of 1974-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandavapura, against the order of that Court made under section 112 of the Code; Cr.R.P. No. 296 of 1975 has been filed by some of the respondents in No. SR|MAGj 40 of 1974-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koppal, Raichur District, against the order of that Court taking steps against them under section 107 of the Code; Cr.R.P. No. 308 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Case No. Cr.P.C. 275. R-5 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hospet, against the order of that Court for proceed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document