https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313088 A petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging concurrent orders of discharge and partial framing of charge was held not maintainable because it operated as a second revision after the Sessions Court had already exercised revisional jurisdiction, which is barred by Section 397(3) CrPC. On the merits, the complaint, contemporaneous recording and other materials did not disclose ingredients of Section 354 IPC, and the later Section 164 statement could not unsettle the concurrent findings. As no illegality or perversity was shown in the impugned orders, interference was refused and the discharge order was allowed to stand. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:14:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313088 A petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging concurrent orders of discharge and partial framing of charge was held not maintainable because it operated as a second revision after the Sessions Court had already exercised revisional jurisdiction, which is barred by Section 397(3) CrPC. On the merits, the complaint, contemporaneous recording and other materials did not disclose ingredients of Section 354 IPC, and the later Section 164 statement could not unsettle the concurrent findings. As no illegality or perversity was shown in the impugned orders, interference was refused and the discharge order was allowed to stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313088