IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7460-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.03.2025 Sunder Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. 45/82021, titled as Kala Singh vs. Harwinder Singh and others, filed by respondent No. 2 under Sections 323, 326, 295-A, 447, 148 and 149 of IPC, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, as well as for quashing of order dated 24.01.2024, passed by the said Court, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint had been filed by respondent No. 2/complainant on the allegations that on 10.07.2020, the present petitioner along with co-accused Harwinder Singh, Davinder Singh, Rajwinder Singh, Ripanpreet Singh @ Bobby, Hardial Singh and Sukhbir Singh had criminally trespassed into his agricultural land. All of them were armed with weapons.

Accused Hardial Singh had made an exhortation to teach a lesson to him for stopping them from discharge of irrigation water from his land. Then they opened assault upon him and caused injuries with their respective weapons, which they were carrying. They also pulled his hair, thereby causing hurt to his religious sentiments. The clamour raised by the complainant attracted his son Lakhwinder Singh and nephew Harjinder Singh, who rescued him and thereafter, the petitioner and co-accused had fled away from the spot.

3. The complainant expired before recording of his statement before the learned trial Court. After his death, his son Lakhwinder Singh was permitted to proceed with the complaint as complainant. In preliminary evidence, 04 witnesses were examined and thereafter, preliminary evidence was closed.

4. After considering the preliminary evidence produced on record, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 24.01.2024, observed that a prima face case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 326, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC was made out and issued process against the petitioner and co-

accused.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind. A cryptic and non-speaking order had been passed. It is further argued that as per the allegations in the complaint itself, Lakhwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh, who are son and nephew of the original complainant Kala Singh, respectively, had reached at the spot after hearing rescue alarm raised by the latter. However, in their respective sworn depositions, CW-1 Lakhwinder Singh and CW-2 Harjinder Singh deposed that they along with the victim were present when the petitioner and other co-accused had opened assault upon Kala Singh. It is submitted that the statements of these witnesses are false on the face of the record as according to the allegations in the complaint itself, they were not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is submitted that after the death of original complainant Kala Singh, the proceedings of the complaint have been ordered to be continued only with a view to humiliate and harass the petitioner, though the complaint should have been abated with the death of the original complainant and should have been dismissed. It is further argued that excluding the statement of CW-1 Lakhwinder Singh and CW-2 Harjinder Singh, which could not be relied upon at all, there is no other prima facie evidence on record to prove the involvement of the petition