https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311733 An order on an application under Section 340 CrPC that does not finally determine the application and only regulates the complaint proceedings is interlocutory in nature, so revision under Section 397(2) CrPC is barred. The court held that the revisional court wrongly entertained revision and stayed the complaint. It also reaffirmed that a prospective accused has no locus standi or right of hearing at the pre-summoning stage under Sections 202 and 204 CrPC, because an accused enters the proceedings only after process is issued. The stay order in revision was set aside, the revisional proceedings were quashed, and the complaint was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:26:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311733 An order on an application under Section 340 CrPC that does not finally determine the application and only regulates the complaint proceedings is interlocutory in nature, so revision under Section 397(2) CrPC is barred. The court held that the revisional court wrongly entertained revision and stayed the complaint. It also reaffirmed that a prospective accused has no locus standi or right of hearing at the pre-summoning stage under Sections 202 and 204 CrPC, because an accused enters the proceedings only after process is issued. The stay order in revision was set aside, the revisional proceedings were quashed, and the complaint was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311733