Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.LAKSHMAN
Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against petitioners in private complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. revival of maintainability of revision petition. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. revisional court's powers and jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. contentions of both parties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. nature of revisional jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 6. clarification on revisional jurisdiction scope. (Para 13) |
| 7. effect of complainants’ death on proceedings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. conclusion and directives of the court. (Para 23) |
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, the Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar appearing for Respondent No. 2.
2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’) seeking to quash the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.(SR) No. 138 of 2024 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint dated 06.11.2023 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) against the Pet
The dismissal of a private complaint renders proceedings non-existent, allowing a revision to be maintainable, while courts should not comment on merits at preliminary stages.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused has a right to be heard in a revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, even if no process has been issued....
The accused has a right to be heard in revisional proceedings if the complaint is dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.
Criminal Courts lack the power to review their own orders, and dismissal for non-prosecution is justified when the complainant fails to appear consistently.
Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application is final order, revisable under Section 397 CrPC before Sessions Court; writ under Article 226 not entertained due to efficacious alternate r....
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is available to challenge the order of issuance of process, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
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
