N. SURIYAKALA versus A. MOHANDOSS AND ORS.
The appeal was dismissed mainly because the delay in filing was not satisfactorily explained, and because Article 136 is a discretionary power to be used only in exceptional cases, not as a regular forum of appeal. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, reiterating the limited scope of Article 136.
- Parties
- Appellant: N. Suriyakala; Respondent: A. Mohandoss; Respondents: Other respondents
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Quashing Criminal Case
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Scope of Article 136, Special Leave Petition, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Discretionary Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
N. Suriyakala
Appellant
A. Mohandoss
Respondent
Other respondents
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Quashing Criminal Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 after the High Court quashed criminal proceedings
- 2 Proper scope and exercise of discretionary power under Article 136
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed mainly because the delay in filing was not satisfactorily explained, and because Article 136 is a discretionary power to be used only in exceptional cases, not as a regular forum of appeal. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, reiterating the limited scope of Article 136.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No interference with High Court judgment quashing criminal proceedings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment