Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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