Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 17 March, 2026
CRM-M-57465
57465-2023 -1-
130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM
CRM-M-57465-2023
Date of Decision:
Decision:- 17.03.2026
Dildar Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate
Mr
f the petitioners.
for
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Petitioner Dildar Singh, Manjit Singh, Kewal Singh and Petitioners Davinder Kaur have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 61 dated 29.07.2019 (P-9) (P 9) under Section 323, 355, 452, 354-B, B, 506, 120-B 120 IPC titled "Surjit rjit Kaur Vs Dildar Singh & Others"
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and summoning order dated 13.03.2023 (P (P-12) vide which petitioners have been summoned under Sectio Section 323, 355, 452, 506, 120-B IPC,, with all subsequent proceedings qua petitioners or any other order or direction which the Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of case.
2. As per the facts narrated in complaint titled "Surjit Kaur Vs. Dildar Singh and others" under Section 323, 355, 452, 354 354-B, 506, 120-B IPC (Annexure P-9), P dispute ispute arose at the instance of Dildar Singh with LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57465 57465-2023 -2- Gurudwara committee committee and lodged a complaint to Satkar committee and to SGPC Amritsar. Alleged occurrence took place on 25.01.2019, when member of Gurudwara Shri Garna Sahib came to resolve the matter. At that time, husband of complainant was not available, so she being Ex Ex-Sarpanch and wife of President went there. Accused Dildar Singh unnecessarily scolded her and used abusive language.
language. On this, Dildar Singh was dragged out of the house by accused Kewal Singh. At about 03:30 pm, she was present in her new house and was going towards old house, when Dildar Singh, Manjit Singh, Kewal Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Sunita, Ravinder Singh and Davinder Dav Kaur came there. Dildar Singh raised lalkara and gave fist blow on her chest. Sunita and Gagandeep Singh caught hold of her hands and accused accused Dildar Singh, Manjit Singh and Kewal Singh slapped her. She was dragged from her hair and was given fist blo blows. Accused Dildar Singh had also torn her shirt. When she was lying down, R Ravinder Singh and Dildar Singh gave her kick blows and threatened her. On hearing her hue and cry, Sarabjit Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh and Kulwinder Kaur wife of Labh Singh reached ed on the spot and rescued her. Accused sensed that people will reach on the spot, therefore, they ran away from the place of occurrence by giving threats to her and her family. With these allegations, complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya.
3. Statements of Surjit Kaur - complainant as CW CW-1 (Annexure P-10/T) 10/T) and Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kewal Singh as CW-3 (wrongly numbered) (Annexure P-11) P 11) have been recorded and thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya passed summ summoning order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-12) P 12) vide which all accused are summoned under LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57465 57465-2023 -3- Section 323, 355, 452, 506, 120-B 120 B IPC. Feeling aggrieved of this complaint and summoning order, present petition has been filed seeking quashing of same.
4. Learned counsel counsel representing petitioners pointed out that false complaint has been filed as a counter blast to FIR No. 0018 dated 26.01.2019 under Section 364, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Section 325, 326, 201, 506 IPC added lateron, lateron registered at Police Station Tanda Tanda, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1/T).
1/T). In said occurrence, Dildar Singh was seriously injured. Copy of his MLR is Annexure P P-2, according to which he had suffered six injuries, which were kept for ortho opinion. He suffered multiple fractures. Photographs of Dildar Singh are Annexure P P-3.
Respondent No. 2/complainant Surjit Kaur was arrested on 26.01.2019. Other co-accused accused were arrested later on. Surjit Kaur was granted regular bail in CRM-M-7654-2019 CRM vide de order dated 13.05.201 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereas, co--accused accused Labh Singh was granted regular bail in CRM CRM-M-
36761-2019 2019 vide order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P P-5). Complaint (Annexure P-9) P 9) was filed to put pressure on petitioners who are complainant/witnesses in aforesaid FIR. List of witnesses is Annexure P complainant/witnesses P-
6/T. 4.1 There is unexplained long delay in filing complaint before the There Court. As per facts narrated in complaint, occurrence took place on 25.01.2019 at 03:30 pm. Respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur did not file any written complaint to police nor she was ever medically examined for receiving any kind of injury. Even if it is considered that she was granted regular bail on 13.05.2019, even then there is delay of two months in filing complaint. Respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur while filing her bail petition in LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57465 57465-2023 -4- CRM-M-7654 7654-2019 (Annexure P-15) in FIR No. 0018 dated 26.01.2019 (Annexure P-1/T) P did not refer to her version as detailed in complaint. Even witnesses examined in the said FIR were not cross-examined on the lines nes of her version as detailed in aforesaid complaint. Therefore, complaint filed by respondent Surjit Kaur is after thought to put pressure on petitioners who are victim(s)/witnesses victim /witnesses in said FIR. Filing of complaint (Annexure P-9) P and summoning order datedd 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-12) is nothing but misuse of process of criminal procedure. Therefore, aforesaid complaint and summoning order may kindly be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/complainant /complainant argued that delay delay in filing complaint is well explained from the facts and circumstances of case. On the same day, Surjit Kaur was arrested and finally she got regular bail on 13.05.20 13.05.2019 from this Court (Annexure P-4).
P 4). After release on bail, complaint is filed. Pre Pre-summoning evidence was recorded and after appreciating the same, summoning order dated 13.03.2023 was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya (Annexure P-12).
P Facts narrated in present petition is their defence and the same is matter of trial. Petition filed by petitioners is without merits and same deserves dismissal.
6. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. It is matter of record that on the statement of Dildar Singh, FIR No. 0018 18 dated 26.01.2019 (Annexu (Annexure P-1/T) (supra) was registered. As per this FIR, alleged occurrence took place on 25.01.2019 at 04:00 pm. Copy of MLR (Annexure P-2) P 2) shows that Dildar Singh was admitted in hospital at 17:00 hours (05:00 pm). As per this MLR, he suffered six injuries. Later Later on, offences under Section 32 325, 326, 201, 506 LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57465 57465-2023 -5- IPC were added. Photographs of injured Dildar Singh are annexed as Annexure P--3. On the other hand, respondent spondent No. 2/ 2/complainant Surjit Kaur filed complaint (Annexure P-9) P 9) on 29.07.2019 by referring to occurrence rrence of same day i.e. 25.01.2019 at 03:30 pm. At that relevant time, complainant did not file any complaint regarding her own version. Learned counsel representing petitioners rightly pointed out that pertaining to alleged incident of 25.01.2019 2 at 03:30 pm, Surjit Kaur was not medically examined. Surjit Kaur admitted that she was arrested on same day and finally she was granted regular bail by this Court on 13.05.2019 in CRM- M-7654-2019 2019 (Annexure P-4).
4). Learned counsel for petitioners has placed on record copy of bail petition bearing CRM CRM-M-7654-2019 (Annexure P-
15) filed by respondent No. 2/complainant Surjit Kaur Kaur. Even in that bail petition, Surjit Kaur did not make any reference to occurrence which allegedly had taken place with her on the same day at 003:30 pm. In case there was any version or cross-version, cross version, it was obvious for Surjit Kaur to mention the same while filing her regular bail petition before this Court.
Learned counsel representing petitioners rightly pointed out that as per the facts narrated d in complaint (Annexure P-9), P 9), in para No. 3, she alleged that on her raising hue and cry, one Sarabjit Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh and Kulwinder Kaur wife of Labh Singh reached on the spot to rescue her. However, at the time of recording pre-summoning pre summoning ev evidence, aforesaid ladies were not examined before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya.. On the other hand, respondent No. 22/complainant herself stepped into the witness box as CW-1 CW (Annexure P P-10/T) and another witness examined by her is Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kewal Singh as CW-3 (wrongly numbered) (Annexure P-11).
P 11). Learned counsel representing petitioners LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57465 57465-2023 -6- annexed cross-examination cross of petitioner No. 1 Dildar Singh as PW-1 (Annexure P-13) P and cross-examination of petitioner No. 2 Manjit Singh as PW-3 3 (Annexure P-14), P 14), where no suggestion was put to them pertaining to incident as claimed by respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur in her complaint (Annexure P-9).
7. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factual position, it is evident that complaint (Annexure P-9) P ) has been filed at a belated stage against Dildar Singh and others who are complainant and witnesses in FIR No. 18 dated 26.01.2019 (Annexure P-1/T) P 1/T) (supra) only to put pressure on them. Filing of this complaint is after thought. Therefore, continuation oof complaint No. 61 dated 29.07.2019 (Annexure P P-9) and summoning order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-12)) is nothing but gross misuse of procedure of criminal law. Consequently, petition filed by petitioner petitioners is allowed and aforesaid complaint (Annexure P P-9) and summoning order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-12)) are, accordingly quashed qua petitioners.
8. Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial Court for information.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
17.03.2026 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
LALIT SHARMA
2026.03.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document