AMARJIT SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforementioned revision petitions arise out of the same FIR, they are being taken up for hearing together and shall be decided by way of this common judgment.

(2.) Challenge in the first revision petition i.e. CRR No.665 of 2023 is to an order dtd. 22/2/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for supplying the original statement of complainant/Rajwant Kaur has been dismissed; while the second revision petition i.e. CRR No.2244 of 2023 is directed against an order dtd. 20/9/2023 passed by the said Court, vide which application filed by the respondent/CBI for summoning of additional witnesses, has been allowed.

(3.) During the course of hearing, a pointed query was put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner enquiring about the maintainability of the instant petitions in their present form. This query stemmed from the fact that the orders being challenged were interlocutory and typically not subject to challenge through a revision petition. However, the learned senior counsel vehemently asserted that the revision petitions were indeed maintainable in the instant case. To bolster his submissions, the learned senior counsel cited a plethora of cases where similar petitions had been entertained by the Court under Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C. To buttress his arguments, learned senior counsel has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in CRR 495 of 2021 titled as Baljinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ; CRM-M No.8247 of 2020 titled as Om Parkash Chhabra and others Chand Prakash Chhabra and CRM-M No.15173 of 2012 titled as Uppal Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Kumar 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 684. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that there existed no explicit bar against entertaining the instant petitions and deciding the same.