[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-19803-2026 (O&M) -1-
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19803-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
RAJEEV SAINI
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Jasinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 528 BNSS is for quashing
of order dated 03.01.2025 in FIR No.02 dated 06.01.2016, under Sections
498-A and 406 Indian Police Code, Women Police Station Jagraon, District
Ludhiana, vide which third application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by
the prosecution was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
married with respondent No.2 on 29.06.2012. Levelling allegations of
cruelty and demand of dowry etc., FIR No.02 dated 06.01.2016 was
registered against the petitioner on complaint of respondent No.2 after 3
years of separation. After framing of charges, prosecution examined 2
witnesses. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the
complainant/respondent No.2 for permission to place on record pen drive but
the same was later withdrawn. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
was filed for summoning mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law
which was dismissed on 20.01.2024. Thereafter, application under Section
CRM-M-19803-2026 (O&M) -2-
311 Cr.P.C. was again filed by the prosecution to place on record dowry
articles and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which
was partly allowed. Yet, again, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
was moved to call witness from M/s Krishna Jewelers, Jagraon to prove gold
bills. Learned counsel submits that impugned order dated 03.01.2025
allowing the application was erroneous and perverse inasmuch as there were
no bills of gold articles on record and the documents were in fact customer's
estimate which did not even pertain to marriage of the petitioner but were
prepared 17 years prior to the marriage, on 25.07.1995. He further submits
that the estimates could not considered bills of dowry articles allegedly
given at the time of marriage of the petitioner. The application was filed
only to cause further delay in disposal of the case and was wrongly allowed.
3. It is no longer res integra that an order determining an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is interlocutory in nature and the
remedy of revision is not available under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. (vide
Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam 2009 (5) SCC 153).
4. Order dated 03.01.2025 of learned JMIC, Jagraon was
challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition before learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana which came to be dismissed on
06.03.2026 on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable, the
order being interlocutory. The petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of
this Court challenging order dated 03.01.2025 of learned JMIC, Jagraon
after exhausting the remedy of revision before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. specifically
bars second revision petition and the petition under Section 528 BNSS with
the prayer to invoke inherent jurisdiction of the Court would not be
CRM-M-19803-2026 (O&M) -3-
maintainable.
5. In Rajan Kumar Manchanda Vs. State of Karnataka 1988(2)
RCR (Criminal) 662, the petitioner moved an application for release of his
truck, which was allowed by learned Magistrate. The State challenged the
order before the Court of Sessions by filing a revision petition. The
Revisional Court dismissed the petition of the State. A petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court by the State challenging
the order. The High Court reversed the order of Magistrate. Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
".......Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court
for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the
statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be
permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section
397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482.
We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The appeal is allowed and
we set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the
Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge is upheld."
6. Once the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 03.01.2025 of learned JMIC, Jagraon has been dismissed, the
petition under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable. Petitioner having
availed the remedy of revision, cannot claim relief by way of a petition
under Section 528 BNSS. Identical were the observations of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Gajraj Vs. Ajay Raghav @ Bobby and Others, 2024
PHHC 125417.
7. The revision petition is dismissed.
CRM-M-19803-2026 (O&M) -4-
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Sumit Singla
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
