Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK MAHRA
Prem – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applications seeking quashing of denial orders and release. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. case facts, section 319 summoning, high court stay. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on stay benefiting non-revisionist co-accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. issue: stay effect on co-accused not filing revision. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. stay suspends indivisible summoning order for all accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. impugned orders set aside; applicants released forthwith. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mahra, J.
The present applications have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, respectively, in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.01 of 2022, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C. The applicants have further prayed that their applications dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 seeking release be allowed, on the ground that the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2018, and consequently, a dir
Stay of composite summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. suspends its operation against all accused; trial court cannot enforce it or deny release during stay, rendering detention illegal until qu....
The judgment established the availability of inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the necessity for the magistrate to apply their mind before passing the summoning ord....
The High Court's quashing of a summoning order based on a misinterpretation of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was erroneous; the Supreme Court confirmed the summoning order and remanded the discharge app....
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) of CrPC and the limitations on invoking the inherent powe....
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
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
