High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/2601/2017dismissed

Ajay Jain v. State Of Punjab

2017-07-31Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR No.2601 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 31, 2017 Ajay Jain

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The present revision has been filed by the petitioner Ajay Jain under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against respondent State of Punjab, challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution was allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, first of all, I find that vide impugned order dated 05.06.2017, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur has summoned witnesses Dr.Harish Matta and Dr.Sanjiv Mahajan by holding that their evidence is essential and necessary for the just decision of the case. As per the record, both these doctors have treated the injured. The injured has been Vineet Gulati 2017.08.18 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh treated by team of doctors. Earlier, other doctors were cited as witnesses. As

CRR No.2601 of 2017 -2per the report, they were not available. Then, an application was filed to summon other three doctors and radiologist, where the Court has passed the order by simply calling one doctor and concerned radiologist but neither accepted the application nor declined the summoning of other two doctors. Again application was filed for calling these two doctors, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 05.06.2017. Aggrieved from this order, present revision petition has been filed.

From the record, I find that any order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., either accepting or rejecting the application, is an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable against the interlocutory order as it is specifically barred under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed being not maintainable.

July 31, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.08.18 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh