web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017

Posted on December 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that all those Order of a Trial Court which terminate the proceedings are not interlocutory Order but are intermediate orders in nature so such Orders are not prohibited in Revision at Session or High Courts.

From Para 16, 17 and 18,

16. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision
jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition in a court exercising its revision
jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
17. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass – final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction – that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
18. The concept of an intermediate order first found mention in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana7 in which case the interpretation and impact of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. came up for consideration. This decision is important for two reasons. Firstly it gives the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and secondly considering that historical background, it gives a justification for a restrictive meaning to
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 21,

21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra8 by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind – an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.

From Paras 23 and 24,

23. We may note that in different cases, different expressions are used for the same category of orders – sometimes it is called an intermediate order, sometimes a quasi-final order and sometimes it is called an order that is a matter of moment. Our preference is for the expression ‘intermediate order’ since that brings out the nature of the order more explicitly.
24. The second reason why Amar Nath is important is that it invokes the principle, in the context of criminal law, that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Therefore, when Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. prohibits interference in respect of interlocutory orders, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be availed of to achieve the same objective. In other words, since Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. prohibits interference with interlocutory orders, it would not be permissible to resort to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside an interlocutory order.

Finally,

27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition – such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of paragraph 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising its extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
28. However, this does not mean that the appellants have no remedy available to them – paragraph 10 of the order does not prohibit the appellants from approaching this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore all that has happened is that the forum for ventilating the grievance of the appellants has shifted from the High Court to this Court. It was submitted by one of the learned counsel that this is not good enough for the appellants since this Court is not obliged to give reasons while dismissing such a petition unlike the High Court which would necessarily have to give reasons if it rejected a revision petition. In our opinion, the mere fact that this Court could dismiss the petition filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution without giving reasons does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that reasons will not be given or that some equitable order will not be passed. The submission of learned counsel has no basis and is only a presumption of what this Court might do. We cannot accept a submission that has its foundation on a hypothesis.

Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 766], [2017 AIR SC 3620], [2017 CRIMES SC 3 96], [2017 CCR SC 3 409], [2017 MLJ CRL 3 616], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 665], [2017 SCALE 7 661], [2017 SCC 14 809], [2018 SCC CRI 1 202], [2017 CRI LJ 4980], [2017 AIC 180 100]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174336697/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59786fa94a9326202d8a7817

Shades of Knife


Disclaimer:

Curated, Reproduced from main.sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.

I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Read more gyan here.

Though, I can remove content from my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express bar from a Competent Court.

Om Shanthi !!!


Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at

AnaghaLegalReliefs.in !!! (work-in-progress)

We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 397(1) - Stay on Lower Court Proceedings in Revision CrPC 397(2) - Revision Not Exercised in Any Interlocutory Order Doctrine of Colourable Legislation - Exceeding the Power Entrusted with Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI Intermediate Orders are not Interlocutory Orders Landmark Case Latin maxim - “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo prohibetur et per obliquum” Latin maxim - “What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly” Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Ms New Era Fabrics Ltd Vs Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri and Ors on 03 Mar 2020 June 26, 2022
  • Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs Dr.A.S.Anand, Honble The C.J.I. on 12 May 2001 June 26, 2022
  • Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K.S on 31 Aug 2021 June 26, 2022
  • Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 Apr 2000 June 26, 2022
  • Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K S Cases June 26, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,432 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,406 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (812 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (769 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (710 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (648 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (640 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (464 views)
  • Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022 (410 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (407 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (309)Reportable Judgement or Order (294)Landmark Case (291)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (219)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (190)1-Judge Bench Decision (107)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (72)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (36)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (602)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (58)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • June 2022 (22)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Network connectivity issues in the Ashburn region June 24, 2022
    Jun 24, 10:48 UTCResolved - Cloudflare experienced Network connectivity issues in the Ashburn region between 09:45 and 09:47 UTC.
  • Cloudflare API service issues June 22, 2022
    Jun 22, 18:41 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 22, 18:34 UTCMonitoring - Cloudflare is investigating issues with API availability from 1750-1755 UTC.Customers using Cloudflare APIs are impacted as requests might fail and/or errors may be displayed.
  • Cloudflare Service Issues June 21, 2022
    Jun 21, 08:06 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 21, 07:51 UTCUpdate - We are still monitoring the result.Jun 21, 07:20 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jun 21, 06:57 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 21, 06:43 UTCInvestigating - A […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 187.109.19.131 | SD June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 80 | First: 2019-08-06 | Last: 2022-06-25
  • 103.18.100.247 | SD June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11,024 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-06-25
  • 114.99.11.184 | S June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 23 | First: 2021-02-04 | Last: 2022-06-25
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 364 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel