UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Judicial Discipline Paramount: Punjab and Haryana HC Dismisses Revision Petitions Against Interlocutory Orders as Non-Maintainable

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on 13th February 2024, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two revision petitions, CRR No.665 of 2023 and CRR No.2244 of 2023, against interlocutory orders, citing their non-maintainability under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, presiding over the case, emphasized the supremacy of the Supreme Court's rulings in maintaining judicial discipline and integrity.

The crux of the judgment revolved around the maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders in criminal cases. The court evaluated the applicability of Sections 397 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., confronting the question of whether such petitions could be entertained contrary to the established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The two revision petitions arose from the same FIR and challenged different orders passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab. CRR No.665 of 2023 contested the dismissal of an application for supplying the original statement of the complainant, while CRR No.2244 of 2023 was against the allowance of summoning additional witnesses by the respondent, CBI.

Justice Kaul meticulously examined the submissions from both parties. The petitioners, represented by senior counsel, cited previous instances where similar petitions had been entertained. They argued for a liberal interpretation to ensure justice and consistency in judicial decisions. Conversely, the counsel for the CBI stressed the impermissibility of challenging interlocutory orders, both directly under Section 397 and indirectly under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Girish Kumar Suneja vs. Central Bureau of Investigation'.

Justice Kaul referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam', which clearly barred revisions against interlocutory orders. She underscored that judicial propriety necessitates adherence to the apex court's decisions, and revisiting settled laws would compromise the legal system's integrity.

The court concluded that the revision petitions were not maintainable, thereby dismissing both. Justice Kaul's decision reaffirmed the fundamental legal principle that lower courts are bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court to ensure a coherent and consistent legal system.

 Date of decision: 13th February, 2024

Amarjit Singh VS Central Bureau of Investigation

Latest Legal News