HARCHARAN SINGH TUCKER & ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB
CRM-M/725/2018 · 2026-07-22
Sanjay Vashisth
body2018
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 5535 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 5535 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125-1 CRM-M-725-2018 (O&M) Decided on : 22.07.2026 Harcharan Singh Tucker and another . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), for quashing of FIR No.200, dated 03.12.2011 (P-1), under Sections 341, 342, 323, 353, 186, 148, 149 of IPC (Sections 332 & 379 of IPC, added vide order dated 10.01.2018), lodged at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. In the present case, on 29.01.2018, following order was recorded:-
“ It is contended inter alia that the petitioner No.1 was not even named in the original FIR, yet he is being put to unnecessary harassment on account of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.200 dated 3rd December,
2011. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A copy of the paper- book be handed over to him during the course of the day. To come up on 27th April, 2018. In the meantime, personal appearance of the present petitioners who are stated to be aged 87 years (male) and 67 years (female) before the Ld. Trial Court may be dispensed with. They may be permitted to be represented by their Advocate under Section 317 Cr.P.C. However, they will be precluded JAWALA RAM 2026.07.24 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
from challenging their identification by the prosecution witnesses and their personal absence shall not be a ground to seek adjournment.”
3. Today, at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners have since expired. Consequently, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of accordingly. 4. Ordered accordingly. The present petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case, i.e., CRM-M-17499-2026.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 22, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.24 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document