GIRlSH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l

2.4 While the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that F entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition-such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set G aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. There appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before this Court. Consequently the result of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived H of exercising its extraordinary discretionary power available GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. .549 under Section 397 Cr.P.C. However, this does not mean that the A appellants have no remedy available to them - the order does not proliibit the appellants from approaching this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, all that has happened is that the forum for ventilating the grievance of the appellants has shifted from the High Court to this Court. It was submitted by one of the B counsel that this is not good enough for the appellants since this Court is not obliged to give reasons while dismissing such a petition unlike the High Court which would necessarily have to give reasons if it rejected a revision petition. The mere fact that this Court could dismiss the petition filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution without giving reasons does not C necessarily lea_d to the conclusion that reasons will not be- given or that some equitable order will not be passed. The submission has no basis and is only a presumption of what this Court might do. A submission that has its foundation on a hypothesis cannot be accepted. [Paras 27 and 28[ [568-C-H]

2.5 As held in Amar Nath that if an interlocutory order is ·not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. that cannot be circumvented by resort to section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concurred with. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this propositiOn. [Para 291 [569-BI

2.6 While in some appeals the· order summoning the appellant or the order for framing charges is in question in other appeals the grievance is in respect of: admission and denial of documents under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.; alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.; joint or single trial unde.r Sections 219 and 220 of the Cr.P.C.; summoning additional accused persons. A challenge to orders of this non-substantive nature that can be agitated in a regular appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. [Para 33) [516-F-G]