[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh vs Kanwaljit Singh on 28 April, 2026
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47393-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:28.04.2026
Daljit Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Kanwaljit Singh ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr.L.S Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-5)
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in criminal
complaint No.34/2018 dated 18.06.2018, under Sections
452,302,458,460,148,149,120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had
filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and six other accused in the
Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, District Amritsar under
Sections 302, 452, 458,460,148,149,120-B of IPC. After recording the
preliminary evidence, the S.D.J.M, Ajnala observed that there were no
sufficient grounds to summon the accused in the criminal complaint. The
respondent/complainant filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions
Judge, Amritsar. The revision petition was finally heard and disposed of vide
CRM-M-47393-2019 (O&M) -2
the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Amritsar. He further contends that from the impugned order, it is
apparent that the service of respondents, which includes the petitioner was
dispensed with and the Revisional Court had completely overlooked the
mandatory provisions of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. In fact, Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C
clearly lays down that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice
of the accused or any other person unless he has had an opportunity of being
heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. He further submits
that the Revisional Court should have summoned the respondents and disposed
of the revision petition after providing an opportunity of hearing to the
respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, however, he is not in a position to controvert the facts that the
provisions of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C were not followed by the Revisional
Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
5. From the record, it is apparent that in the impugned order
(Annexure P-5), it has been mentioned that the service of the respondents was
dispensed with and the Revisional Court had apparently committed an illegal
act by overlooking the mandatory provisions of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C.
6. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed
by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside and the
criminal revision titled as "Kanwaljit Singh Vs. Daljit Singh and Ors." is
CRM-M-47393-2019 (O&M) -3
ordered to be restored to its original position.
7. The Revisional Court is directed to decide the revision petition
after hearing both the parties in the revision petition.
8. The petitioner as well as the respondents are directed to remain
present before the Revisional Court on 27.05.2026.
9. The petition has been filed only by one accused namely Daljit
Singh and it is expected that the other respondents No.2 to 7 shall also be
served by the Revisional Court, before disposing of the revision petition.
10. The petition stands allowed in above terms.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
28.04.2026 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
