Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and 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

Similar News