Naresh Prasad Mittal vs Mahavir Singh-18/01/1960

In the case of Bansi v. Hari Singh, 1956 Cri LJ 561 : ((S) AIR 1956 All 297) it was observed at page 568 that by virtue of Section 426 Cr. P. C., the High Court in entertaining a revision against an order of a subordinate court has full power to stay or suspend the execution of any order for the pendency of the revision. Similar powers have now been given under Section 435 (1) Cr. P. C. to Sessions Judges.

Sessions Judge’s powers of revision – Sec 399 of CrPC

In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

Case of interlocutory order which could be corrected in exercise of criminal revisional power

In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) (supra) a distinction has been made between an order which is purely interlocutory which could be corrected in exercise of revisional power and an order though interlocutory which results in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice.

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…