CRR No.778 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-3.12.2010 Nirmal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Parvinder Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Lalit Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Viney Saini, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved, in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that the complainant-respondent filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3) against the petitioners-accused alongwith her husband and co-accused, namely, Gurmukh Singh, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with section 34 IPC. 2. As main accused Gurmukh Singh, husband of the complainant, did not appear, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court. However, having completed all the codal formalities, the trial court, after extending the benefit of doubt, acquitted the remaining petitioners-accused, by virtue of judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P2). 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent- complainant filed the appeal and the first appellate Court passed the following order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1):- “Sh.Dilbagh Singh, Advocate filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2 to 6. Learned counsel is directed to produce these respondents in the court on 13.04.2010 and also to furnish surety bonds CRR No.778 of 2010 2 on their behalf till 13.04.2010. Record be requisitioned. Respondent no.1 Gurmukh Singh was absconding even before the Trial court and as such, service upon him is dispensed with.” 4. Although, the impugned order is simple and pure interlocutory/interim order, but still, the petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the same and filed the present revision petition. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me, there is no merit in the instant petition. 6. As is evident from the record that the first appellate Court has only passed a “step in aid” order at the initial stage of the appeal and no rights or liabilities have been decided against the petitioners-accused. As the impugned order is simpliciter an interlocutory/interim order, therefore, the revision petition against such order, is not legally maintainable, as contemplated under section 397 (2) Cr.PC. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed, being not maintainable in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 3.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge