SHANTA KUMAR Vs. VIRBHADRA SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-10-3
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 01,1997

Shanta Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
VIRBHADRA SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SALMAN V. WARNER [REFERRED]
S. KUPPUSWAMI RAO V. THE KING [REFERRED]
MOHAN LAL MAGAN LAL THAKKAR V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
DEBAJYOTI BURMAN V. DR. NALINAKSHYA SANYAL [REFERRED]
HARI CHARAN V. THE STATE [REFERRED]
K.V. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY V. THE STATE [REFERRED]
SMT. PARMESHWARI DEVI V. THE STATE AND ANR. [REFERRED]
AMAR NATH AND ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [REFERRED]
MADHU LIMAYE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
V.C. SHUKLA V. STATE THROUGH C.B.I. [REFERRED]
K.M. MATHEW V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. [REFERRED]
CHURIARAM AGGARWAL AND ANR. V. AGGARWAL SWEET CORNER AND ANR. [REFERRED]
R. V. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. COLLECTOR SUJAN SINGH [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Petitioner is facing trial under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in a private complaint filed by the Respondent. The trial is at the stage of recording evidence of the Respondent. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.1997 whereby the order dated 23.4.1997 has been recalled and it has been directed that the application of the Petitioner under Sections 91 and 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called "the Code") shall be decided afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The Petitioner has challenged this order by filing the present Revision petition under Section 397 of the Code.
(2.)By the order dated 23.4.1997, the application under Sections 91 and 94 of the Code of the Petitioner was allowed in the following terms without any notice to the Respondent:
23.4.1997: Present: Sh. Vinod Sharma, Advocate. Seen. The witnesses be summoned with the relevant record for the next date on deposit of DM within three days and after (not legible) the application be placed on relevant file.

(3.)After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that this Criminal Revision Petition is not maintainable in view of the bar under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Code, the High Court or any Sessions Judge has the powers of revision but subject to the limitations imposed by Sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code is:
The powers of Revision conferred by Sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.