Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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