SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(MP) 157

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA
Sovaran Singh and others – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Jitendra Sharma for applicants; B.B. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for State.

ORDER

1. This revision is filed by the applicants under sections 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of the order dated 17.11.2006, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2006, by which the Revisional Court directed the learned trial Court to decide the application of the prosecution under section 216 of Cr.PC, dated 22.8.2005.

2. The main grievances of the applicants are that the impugned order passed by Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law because the same was filed against an interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court below was not having jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by learned trial Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

3. Fact of the case, in brief, is that on the basis of the report lodged by the applicant No.2 at the Police Station Joura bearing Crime No. 355/97, under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC was registered. Subsequently, the matter was investigated by the CID. On the basis of CID report, the offence under sections 304-A, 201, 177, 182, 211 of IPC was registered against the applicants. The trial Court framed the charges under se












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top