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) 4166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK SURI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:1)

(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:1)

CRR-274-2026 (cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:21)ti(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:31) !" "!"#

(cid:3)

DEEPAK SURI (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:3)

(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)

STATE OF PUNJAB (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)

(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)$(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:3)%(cid:16)&(cid:6)(cid:1)$(cid:11) (cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:10)’(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:1)((cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)’ (cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:17))(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:1)

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) *****(cid:1)

(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:24)ti(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:27)ti(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:24)ti(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:11)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:31)(cid:19) (cid:9)!(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)

(cid:3) (cid:3) "(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:24)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) #####(cid:3)

((cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)’ (cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:17))(cid:15)(cid:14)+(cid:1)(cid:14) (cid:1),(cid:9)-(cid:19)./

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

02.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, whereby his application under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 of Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 128 dated 06.11.2012 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR along with Ashok Suri C/o Ashok Rice Mills and Harpal Singh Prop Shri Hargobind Rice Mills. The procurement agencies of the Government of Punjab, i.e. PUNGRAIN, PUNSUP, etc., had purchased paddy of the PAU- 201 variety without bothering about the specification of the said paddy. The procured paddy was eventually supplied to the rice millers for milling of rice, and no samples were taken even at that stage. The complainant- department thus followed an unscientific methodology not only for the procurement of paddy but also for the allotment and allocation of the same. Eventually, the FIR was got registered on allegation of the shortage of rice and embezzlement thereof.

3. The prosecution led its evidence, and on conclusion thereof, the incriminating material was put to the petitioner herein while recording statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and that he was not guilty of having committed the offence. He sought time to lead the defence evidence. No defence evidence was led by the petitioner herein, whereupon the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 27.10.2025. It was thereafter that the application under Section 348 BNSS was moved by the petitioner for the summoning

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