JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

CRM No.4495 of 2024 in CRR No.665 of 2023

Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/ petitioner submits that since he is ready with the arguments in the main case fixed for 05.03.2024, the hearing be advanced to today.

Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI does not oppose the prayer made for advancing the date of hearing.

Accordingly, on joint request of both the parties the revision petition is taken up for hearing today.

CRR Nos.665 & 2244 of 2023 (O&M)

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 dated 22.02.2023 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 dated 20.09.2023 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 Section 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.

4. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, emphasized the importance of maintaining the rule of judicial discipline and propriety. It was argued that consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions was essential for lawyers to provide accurate assistance to their clients. Therefore, the Court should refrain from adopting a hyper technical view, by deciding the instant petitions in the interest of justice, as had been done by Coordinate Benches of this Court. However, should the Court be disinclined to entertain the petitions and opt for a contrary view, the learned senior counsel strenuously urged that since a question of law qua the maintainability of the petition was involved, the matter be referred to a Division Bench of this Court for further consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the CBI has, at the outset, raised an objection to the maintainability of the present petitions under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. He has contended that since the law in the said regard stands squarely settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam 2010 (5) RCR (Criminal) 512, there would be no question of the matter being referred to a Division Bench of this Court. Furthermore, it has been argued that the petitioners recourse to this Court was untenable under both Section 482 and Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. As per learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, even though a direct challenge to an interlocutory order was impermissible under Section 397 Cr.P.C., attempting to do so indirectly through Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also equally impermissible. In support of his arguments,