Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRR No.800 of 2017 (O&M) Satnam Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(ii) CRR No.1031 of 2017 (O&M) Sukhwinder Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: August 18, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.H.S.Diwana, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR No.800 of 2017) and for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CRR No.1031 of 2017). Mr.K.K.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR No.1031 of 2017) and for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CRR No.800 of 2017). Mr.Parveen Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of above-mentioned two connected revisions as the point for determination in both the cases is the same. The above-mentioned revision petitions have been filed by Vineet Gulati 2017.09.05 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh petitioners Satnam Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, challenging the impugned
CRR No.800 of 2017 and connected revision -2orders dated 27.01.2017 vide which the prosecution evidence was closed by order and order dated 16.02.2017 vide which application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in each case, appeared and contested the petitions.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as after going through the record, I find that order of the trial Court closing the prosecution evidence as well as the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., are interlocutory orders. No revision is maintainable against the interlocutory orders. As both these orders passed by learned trial court are interlocutory orders, therefore, revision against the interlocutory order, is specifically barred under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, both the revision petitions stand dismissed being not maintainable.
August 18, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.09.05 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh