Sec 200-204 cr.p.c.

Dineshwar Singh Kaushik (Querist) 05 December 2010 This query is : Resolved
Please suggest any suitable decision that an accused person after appearing in court on summon can file revision against the order for issuance of summon u/204 cr.p.c.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 05 December 2010
No deciison is required. The accused person can file revision against the order issuing process either before the sessions court or the high court.

Arun Kumar Bhagat (Expert) 05 December 2010
Only in the High Court for quashing the proceeding. It is absolutely no-no for seesions Court.

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 05 December 2010
I talked about revision, not quashing.

SANJAY GUPTA (Expert) 06 December 2010
Yes no dicision is rquired for filing revision, agree with Mr. Barman

Arvind Singh Chauhan (Expert) 06 December 2010
I do go with Barman Sir.

s.subramanian (Expert) 06 December 2010
A revision can be filed under Sec.397 CrPC only against a final order and not an interlocutory order. A decision is definitely required for filing a revision. Only Se.482 can be invoked and no revision can be filed before the sessions court.

Guest (Expert) 06 December 2010
I disagree with Mr Subramanian and Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat ....Issueing process under section 204 Cr.P.C. adversely affect the rights of a person... its not an interlocutory order... Revision can be filed before Sessions Court.....

Guest (Expert) 06 December 2010
Rajendra Kumar Sita Ram Pandey v. Uttam 1999 (3) SCC 134 : AIR 1999 SC 1028.

It was decided by the Apex Court on 11-2-1999. In that case the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were accused in a case for offence punishable under Section 500/34, I.P.C. The Magistrate after recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. issued summons to the accused persons to appear to stand trial for offence under Section 500/34, I.P.C. That order of the Magistrate was challenged by the accused in the revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused after coming to the conclusion that the case is covered by exception 8 to Section 499, I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the complainant approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge on the finding that the order of the Magistrate is an interlocutory order and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr.P.C. to interfere with the same. Against that order the accused approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of an appeal in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of the process is not an interlocutory order arid therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now