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) 81198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RANJIT KUMAR JHALLY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERS – Respondent
CRM-M_23229_2026



##PAGE1##

(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:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:1)

CRM-M-23229-2026 (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:30)!(cid:30)#

(cid:4)

RANJIT KUMAR JHALLY (cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:16)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:4)

(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:6)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:24)ti(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:11)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:10) (cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4) !(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:8)ti(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)

(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) """""(cid:4)

((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)./

(cid:8)(cid:11)$01(cid:31)1230(cid:30)!(cid:30)#(cid:1)

Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-23229-2026

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the

order dated 15.04.2026 passed in case No. CHI-178-2022, CNR No. PBKPA1-001781-2022 titled as “State of Punjab versus Ranjit Kumar’ bearing FIR No. 45 dated 23.04.2022 registered under Section 420 of the IPC at Police Station Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala whereby

the opportunity to cross examine the witness has been declined.

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.29 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

(cid:8)(cid:11)$0$0(cid:30)2(cid:30)(cid:30)40(cid:30)!(cid:30)#(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:22)#(cid:22)(cid:4)

(cid:4)

2. In light of the order which this Court intends to pass, issuance of formal notice is being dispensed with at this stage as it would only cause delay in the proceedings and subject respondents to unnecessary financial

burden.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that he has been nominated as an accused in the aforesaid case. The complainant had been examined at length but the original agreement to sell had not been exhibited. Later on, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr. P.C. for recalling/re- examination of the complainant and for proving the original agreement to Sell dated 03.09.2019, was filed. The said application was allowed by the Court vide order dated 06.03.2026. The complainant, thereafter, appeared before the trial Court on 15.04.2026 for being re-examined. The petitioner was unavailable, hence, his Counsel moved an application for grant of exemption. The said application was allowed and while the C

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