CRM-M-36141-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRM-M-36141-2026 Decided on: 08.07.2026 Amarjit Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate, Mr. Jugraj Singh Chouhan, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner – Amarjit Singh, has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking a direction to the Court of Sessions, i.e. the Revisional Court, to decide Criminal Revision No.182 of 2026, filed by respondent No.2 against the order dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. Yesterday i.e. on 07.07.2026, when petitioner was being heard, following order was passed:- “ (i) xx xx xx xx It is an admitted position that petitioner has not been summoned as an accused in the case till date. However, have appeared the Revisional Court by filing an application in the said revision petition. It is further not disputed that the petitioner has not REENA 2026.07.10 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36141-2026 been summoned by the Revisional Court, nor has any notice been issued to him to appear and oppose the arguments to be addressed by the complainant/revisionist (respondent No.2 herein). (ii) Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has no cause of action to challenge any judicial order by way of the present petition. However, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce any order passed by the Revisional Court issuing notice to the petitioner, or any notice received by him requiring his appearance in the revisional proceedings. (iii) List again on 08.07.2026.” 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently some wrong facts were addressed by him on 07.07.2026 and the fact is that petitioner is already a challaned accused and is facing trial in the present case before the trial Court. However, on dismissal of the application under 319 Cr.P.C., complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed revision petition before the revisional Court i.e. Court of Sessions, in which proceedings of trial Court have already been stayed, thus, submits that petitioner being senior citizen of the age of 81 years is entitled for speedy disposal of the trial. 4. The present petition is misconceived because statutory right is being availed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 and if there is any prejudice having been suffered by the petitioner, he must firstly approach to the Court of Sessions , where the proceedings in revision petition is pending. Moreover, revision petition was instituted in the year 2026 itself and the efforts can be made for early disposal of revision petition, whereby some other persons are proposed to be summoned as accused. REENA 2026.07.10 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36141-2026 5. In view of the aforementioned discussion, finding no substance in the present petition or even prayer addressed by counsel for the peititoner, the same is hereby dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 08.07.2026 JUDGE reena Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO REENA 2026.07.10 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh