TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the order passed by the Magistrate on the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory and therefore not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether a prospective accused has any right to participate or be heard at the pre-summoning stage in a complaint case.
Issue (i): Whether the order passed by the Magistrate on the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory and therefore not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The order of the Magistrate did not finally decide the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It only recorded that the proceedings in the complaint case could not be stalled merely because such an application had been filed, while the application itself remained pending. An order that does not determine the rights of the parties finally and merely regulates or adjourns the proceedings is interlocutory in nature. Revision against such an order is barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: The order was interlocutory and no revision lay against it; the revisional court wrongly entertained the revision and stayed the complaint proceedings.
Issue (ii): Whether a prospective accused has any right to participate or be heard at the pre-summoning stage in a complaint case.
Analysis: The settled legal position is that an accused does not enter the proceedings until process is issued. At the stage of inquiry under Sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prospective accused has no locus standi and no right of hearing. Participation by a proposed accused before summons would frustrate the object of the pre-summoning inquiry and is not contemplated by the Code.
Conclusion: A prospective accused has no right to be heard or participate before summoning.
Final Conclusion: The stay order passed in revision was set aside, the revisional proceedings were quashed, and the complaint proceedings before the trial court were permitted to continue in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order that does not finally determine the pending application and merely prevents the stalling of complaint proceedings is interlocutory, and a prospective accused has no right of participation before issuance of process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
