IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.02.2026 Date of Decision :12.02.2026 Surjit Singh @ Raju and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harsh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

While invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, provided by Section 482 Cr.P.C., the quashing of a criminal complaint, i.e. COMI-42-2019, has been sought. The above mentioned complaint is with regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452 148 and 149 IPC, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Patti.

2. In nutshell the facts emerging from record are that with regard to an incident dated 19.10.2015, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 148 and 149 IPC, the FIR No.303 dated 23.10.2015 was lodged in Police Station Patti District Taran Tarn. The above mentioned FIR was lodged against the petitioners and one more person ‘Parvinder Singh’ on the complaint of ‘Jagjit Singh’. The record further reveals that once the FIR was lodged, the investigation was conducted by the police and during the course of investigation it was found that allegations contained in the FIR, with regard to use of deadly weapons and disrespect to the turban, were false. Resultantly a cancellation report was prepared by the Investigating Agency and the same was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Once the above mentioned cancellation report dated 12.09.2016 was filed the learned Court of Magistrate issued notice to the complainant ‘Jagjit Singh’, the father of respondent No.2. The record further shows that on 13.04.2017 ‘Jagjit Singh’ stated before the Court that he had no objection in accepting the cancellation report, (in National Lok Adalat dated 09.09.2017), and therefore, the above mentioned cancellation report was accepted.

3. In the backdrop of above mentioned facts the present complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent No.2, hereinafter being referred to as respondent No.2 only, alleging therein that a piece of land ad measuring 10 marla was purchased by him from ‘Surjit Singh @ Raju’ in the name of his parents and a building was constructed thereupon. According to complainant on 19.10.2015 at about 2.00 P.M. Sahib Singh electrician was working in the above mentioned building with an electric cutter, but ‘Surjit Singh @ Raju’ (petitioner No.1) raised the objection & stopped ‘Sahib Singh’ from working. As per complainant, when ‘Sahib Singh’ reported the above mentioned incident to the father of respondent No.2, the father of respondent No.2, namely ‘Jasjit Singh @ Jagjit Singh’ requested the petitioner No1. not to interfere in the work of Sahib Singh.

4. It was further alleged by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners did not pay heed to the request of father of respondent No.2 and picked up quarrel with him. As per complainant, he was joined by ‘Ravinder Singh’ (petitioner No.3) armed with baseball bat, ‘Parvinder Singh’ armed with kirpan (sword), ‘Darshan Kaur’ (petitioner No.2) ‘Harpreet Kaur’ (petitioner No.5) and Rimpi (petitioner No.4). According to complainant they all launched attack upon ‘Jasjit Singh’ and inflicted injuries on his person, removed his turban and dragged him out of the building. It was also alleged by the complainant that upon hearing commotion he and his brother ‘Shamsher Singh’ rushed to the spot, but they’ too’ came under attack and suffered injuries. As per complainant when they screamed for help the neighbours started gathering on the spot due to which assailants fled from the spot.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the filing of complaint by the respondent No.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the present case is