Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra-31/10/1977

By a rule of harmonious construction, we think that the bar in sub-s. (2) of S. 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the purposes of Art. 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory orders within the meaning of S. 397 (2). It is neither advisable, nor possible, to make a catalogue of orders to demonstrate which kinds of orders would be merely, purely or simply interlocutory and which kinds of orders would be final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types of orders which will fall in between the two. The first two kinds are well known and can be culled out from many decided cases. We may, however, indicate that the type of order with which we are concerned in this case, even though it may not be final in one sense, is surely not interlocutory so as to attract the bar of sub-sec. (2) of S. 397. In our opinion it must be taken to be an order of the type falling in the middle course.

Whether criminal revision filed in a police case by private person in HC is maintainable?

Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others Vs Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another- Section 439 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court which have taken the view that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal,…

Defacto complainant can file revision once the application for Police Remand has been rejected-Madras HC

MADRAS HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH ( Before : P. Devadass, J ) G. PRIYADARSHINI   Vs.  STATE  Crl. R.C. No. 491 of 2014 Decided on : 20-06-2014 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 156, Section 157, Section 167, Section 167(1), Section…