NAVEEN KAUSHIK Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING grieved by the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(Crl.) No.177/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has expressed the view that when framing of charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is interlocutory, the summoning order cannot be considered as a final order to enable the accused to approach the Court for quashment of the same.

(2.) THOUGH maintenance of Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in a criminal writ has been raised yet we have thought it apposite to deal with the controversy without entering into the issue of maintainability.

(3.) KEEPING in view the aforesaid conclusions, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and accordingly it is so ordered. The matter is remitted to the file of the learned Single Judge to be dealt with regard being had to the reference answered in W.P.(Crl.) No.80/2010 (Shri Arun Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and other connected matters. There shall be no order as to costs.