https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295202 A cross FIR arising from the same court-campus incidents was treated as part of the same cluster of connected matters, and for consistency and effective investigation it was directed to travel with the other cases already entrusted to the SIT (CBI). The request to set aside the earlier order dated 28.10.2010 was rejected because the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and the accused's procedural rights remained protected by law. The application was therefore partly allowed only to the extent of transfer of the cross FIR to the SIT (CBI). en-us Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 13:19:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295202 A cross FIR arising from the same court-campus incidents was treated as part of the same cluster of connected matters, and for consistency and effective investigation it was directed to travel with the other cases already entrusted to the SIT (CBI). The request to set aside the earlier order dated 28.10.2010 was rejected because the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and the accused's procedural rights remained protected by law. The application was therefore partly allowed only to the extent of transfer of the cross FIR to the SIT (CBI). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295202