SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSHARANJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRR-24-2025 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-24-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 13.01.2026

Decided on : 29.01.2026

Harsharanjit Singh

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab & Anr.

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by : Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General Punjab.

Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. An application moved by the petitioner, who is facing a trial for

the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 336, 323, 506, 34

of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, vide FIR No.19 dated

21.01.2020, Police Station City Sangrur, has been dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge Sangrur, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial

Court’ only, by virtue of order dated 22.11.2024.

2. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order dated 22.11.2024,

hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, the present revision

GAURAV THAKUR

2026.01.31 13:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CRR-24-2025 (O&M)

2

petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being

referred to as ‘petitioner’ only.

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that while

facing trial for the commission of abovementioned offence, the petitioner

approached the learned trial Court for discharging him, by filing an

application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the

abovementioned application has been dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

4. A perusal of record shows that the FIR, which led to

prosecution of petition, came into being at the instance of ‘Ashok Kumar’,

hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the

above-named complainant that he was working as a Clerk in the office of

Municipal Council, Sangrur and that since 2017, he was on deputation as

Clerk in Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sangrur. According to

complainant, on 21.01.2020 at about 12:30 pm, Harsharan Singh (petitioner

herein) along with 2-3 unknown persons entered his office and questioned

why the complainant was supporting Arjan Dev, a retired Superintendent.

As per complainant, thereafter the petitioner and his associates hurled abuses

in foul language qua the complainant and also threatened him to kill.

5. It was further stated by the complainant that in the ensuing

quarrel, they all came out of the office, i.e. on the road, where President of

Employees Union of Municipal Council and driver of the Municipal

Council, namely Ramesh Kumar Bagri and Balkar, respectively, arrived.

According to complainant, they all tried their best to convince the above-

GAURAV THAKUR

2026.01.31 13:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CRR-24-2025 (O&M)

3

named assailants and his accomplices not to use such abusive language and

that at that point of time, with an intention to kill him Harsharan Singh

(petitioner) took out a pistol, aimed at the complainant, and fired a gunshot.

As per complainant, on account of abovementioned gunshot, he suffered a

pallet injury on his right feet, and Balkar Singh on left ankle. It was also

stated by the complainant that thereafter the accomplices of Harsharan Singh

also took out a revolver and one daha (knife), but due to intervention of

other employees of office, the complainant was rescued and the petitioner

along with his accomplices fled from the spot.

6. It is the case of prosecution that in view of abovementioned

complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken

up.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner

is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case by twisting

the facts. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, several bills of the

petitioner, who was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer [SD(E)], in Punjab

Water Supply and Sewerage Board and posted in Sub-Divisional Barnala,

were pending in the head office of Punjab Water S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top