Skip to content


Tinopal Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantTinopal
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
.........respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice r.p.nagrath present: none. r.p.nagrath, j. (oral) the instant revision has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 6.12.2013, passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, panipat on the application under section 311 cr.p.c.filed by the petitioner to place on record of the trial court, copy of petition under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, copy of reply to the said petition and copy of protection order dated 7.8.2009 passed during the pendency of said petition. the trial is pending in fir no.174 dated 7.7.2010 for offences under sections 323/506/382/325/34 ipc at police station kunjpura, district karnal. when the instant revision was listed on 27.1.2014, time was requested to place on.....
Judgment:

CRR-286-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-286-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.3.2014 Tinopal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH PRESENT: None.

R.P.NAGRATH, J.

(ORAL) The instant revision has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 6.12.2013, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.filed by the petitioner to place on record of the trial Court, copy of petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, copy of reply to the said petition and copy of protection order dated 7.8.2009 passed during the pendency of said petition.

The trial is pending in FIR No.174 dated 7.7.2010 for offences under Sections 323/506/382/325/34 IPC at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.

When the instant revision was listed on 27.1.2014, time was requested to place on record copy of the FIR and copies of other relevant documents.

This order has not been complied with so far.

None even Kataria Rishu 2014.04.01 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-286-2014 (O&M) -2- was present on behalf of the petitioner on the previous date.

It is otherwise a settled principle that revision against an order passed by the Magistrate on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.would not be maintainable.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sethuraman versus Rajamanickam 2009(2) Criminal Court Cases 706 (SC) wherein the trial Court dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.for producing certain documents and another application for re-calling of the complainant for cross-examination and the High Court in revision allowed the same, held the order of the High Court unsustainable because revision against interlocutory order was not maintainable.

In view of the above, the instant revision is dismissed.

March 31, 2014 ( R.P.NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE Kataria Rishu 2014.04.01 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //