CRM-M-53558-2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 306 CRM-M-53558-2021 Date of decision : 23.07.2026 SAWINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of judgment dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the criminal revision petition bearing No.20 dated 31.05.2019 filed by respondent No.2 was allowed and summoning order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurdaspur was set aside whereby the respondent was summoned to face complaint No.54 of 2018, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 504, 427 and 34 IPC, District Gurdaspur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a retired Sub- Inspector from the Delhi Police, alleged that respondent No.2, who is his real brother, along with his nephew, intended to forcibly grab his property. It is POONAM RATHORE 2026.07.31 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53558-2021 -2- alleged that on 22.05.2018 at about 5.30 p.m., when the petitioner, his wife Balwinder Kaur and daughter-in-law Surjit Kaur were present at their house, respondent No.2, accompanied by the village Sarpanch and some other persons, came outside their house, abused and threatened them. It is alleged that respondent No.2, who was armed with a dang, assaulted the petitioner and his wife and caused injuries on their hands. The petitioner claimed that he snatched the dang from respondent No.2 and the entire occurrence was captured in the CCTV camera installed at his house as well as on his mobile phone. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in setting aside the well-reasoned summoning order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that at the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the preliminary evidence and is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is duly supported by the CCTV footage, the statements of the complainant and his wife, and the documentary evidence to disclose the commission of the alleged offence. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2021 be set aside and the summoning order dated 05.12.2018 be restored. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that the revisional Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction after examining POONAM RATHORE 2026.07.31 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53558-2021 -3- the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the summoning order in detail. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the facts while allowing the revision petition. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner suffers from material contradictions and does not disclose sufficient grounds to summon respondent No.2 for the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate had passed the summoning order without considering the inconsistencies in the complainant's version. The revisional Court, after a detailed examination of the entire record, rightly concluded that the summoning order was unsustainable under the law. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel(s) for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is apparent from the record that it is a case of version and cross- version between two real brothers regarding the same occurrence dated 22.05.2018. It has been brought on record that on the complaint made by respondent No.2 on 24.05.2018, FIR No.59 dated 02.08.2018 under Sections 451, 504, 354-A IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act at Police Station Ghuman Kalan, District Gurdaspur, was registered against the present petitioner, after proper enquiry by the police. However, the present complaint was instituted on 12.07.2018, much after the alleged occurrence as well as after the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, which lends support to POONAM RATHORE 2026.07.31 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53558-2021 -4- the finding recorded by the revisional Court that the complaint appears to be a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2. 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment also shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has minutely examined the complaint, the preliminary evidence as well as the summoning order. The revisional Court has recorded a categorical finding that it was nowhere mentioned either in the complaint or in the preliminary statements of the complainant and his wife that respondent No.2 had entered their house or courtyard before causing injuries. The allegations merely disclose that the injuries were caused with a dang, without specifying whether the occurrence took place inside or outside the house. It has also been noticed that no medical evidence was produced to substantiate the alleged injuries. 9. The revisional Court has also taken into consideration that the FIR registered against the complainant was based upon a complaint dated 24.05.2018, which preceded the filing of the present complaint before the Magistrate. On that basis, it concluded that the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to the earlier proceedings. Moreover, there was no material in the complaint or in the preliminary evidence to indicate the nature of the alleged mischief or any damage to the complainant's property so as to constitute an offence under Section 427 IPC. Similarly, the allegations regarding criminal intimidation were found to be vague and bereft of merits, as neither the complaint nor the statements disclosed the exact nature of the threats allegedly extended by respondent No.2. POONAM RATHORE 2026.07.31 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53558-2021 -5- 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned cogent and well-reasoned findings while holding that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 506 IPC were not prima facie made out against respondent No.2. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Consequently, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) July 23, 2026 JUDGE poonam Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2026.07.31 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document