IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25385-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.04.2026 Balkar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. J. S. Bhandohal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) [which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023] for quashing of Complaint No. 21 dated 05.06.2018, titled as Lachhman Singh vs. Mohan Singh and others, filed under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B of IPC and order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the petitioner along with the co-accused was summoned to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences. The petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the aforesaid complaint, which was initially dismissed by the learned trial Court by passing the order dated 26.03.2019, was restored and remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the same afresh.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that respondent No.2 had filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner and co-accused Mohan Singh and Kulwant Singh. After recording of the preliminary evidence, the impugned complaint was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 26.03.2019. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 26.09.2019, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed a criminal revision before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2022 and the complaint was remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the same afresh in view of the observations made in the order dated 18.01.2022. Subsequent to the remand of the aforesaid case to the learned trial Court, the petitioner along with the co-accused was summoned to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences, vide impugned order dated 09.02.2022. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned complaint as well as the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner along with the co-accused has falsely been implicated in the impugned complaint. The impugned complaint as well as the summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed. After appreciating the preliminary evidence led by respondent No. 2/complaint, the complaint was initially dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 26.03.2019, as the ingredients for commission of alleged offences were not even prima facie attracted against the petitioner and co-accused. However, respondent No.2/complainant, being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated

26.03.2019, filed a criminal revision before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was wrongly allowed by the Court concerned and that too without issuing any notice to the present petitioner and thereby not granting any opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the said course adopted by the learned revisional Court was totally contrary to the provisions of Section 401 of the Code (which corresponds to Section 442 of BNSS, 2023) and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is, thus, urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned complaint and summoning order as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned State counsel has not raised any arguments.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainan