IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.03.2026 Harpreet Singh …... Petitioner(s)

V/s State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Joginder Pal Devgan, Advocate, (Through VC)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Meena, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is for transfer of Criminal case bearing No.(1) SC/201/2021 titled as State versus Nishan Singh and another (Annexure P-15) (2) SC/32/2023 titled as State versus Simranjit Singh @ Simrat @ Simar and another (Annexure P-16) and (3) CRM/32/2021 titled as Harpreet Singh versus State of Punjab and another (Annexure P-6) arising out of FIR No. 63 dated 02.05.2020 under Sections 307, 325, 323, 506, 148, 149, 188, 269 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 51-B of Disaster Management Act, 2005 registered at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-2).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter known as ‘the petitioner’) contends that the accused had informed the petitioner that they had some arrangements with the Trial Court Judge and therefore, they were likely to be acquitted. It was in those circumstances that the instant petition had been filed. The apprehension of the petitioner came to be true when on 19.04.2023 despite this Court passing an order directing the Trial Court not to pass a final order, the respondent No.2- Yadwinder Singh alias Yaadu and other co-accused came to be acquitted. He, therefore, prays that the Trials emanating out FIR No.63 dated 02.05.2020 (Annexure P-2) be transferred to any other Judge of District Tarn Taran.

3. The learned counsel for the State submits that as the Trial itself has concluded, the question of transferring the same does not arise. The petitioner who is the complainant may avail his remedies in accordance with law.

4. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the interim order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court was not conveyed to the Trial Court because of which it proceeded to acquit the accused-respondent No.2 and other co-accused. As all the accused already stand acquitted, the present petition is rendered infructuous. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking transfer of the cases to another Judge on account of certain apprehensions that the petitioner entertained. This Court on 19.04.2023 directed the Trial Court to not to pass final order. Despite the said fact, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused. Admittedly, a judgment of acquittal is in operation. The petitioner who is the complainant is at liberty to challenge the said judgment and make all necessary averments as he deems appropriate in the said appeal, if so filed.

7. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.

8. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case as to whether the Trial Court was aware of the interim order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court or not.

March 24, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

sukhpreet JUDGE