SHER ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations in para nos. 21, 22 and 23:

(3.) It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."