265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55680-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 NASRUDDIN ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present- Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, F.P. Jhirka vide which the application for discharging of accused Ganga Ram moved by the prosecution agency has been allowed without issuance of notice to the complainant/petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Ganga Ram was got declared proclaimed offender by the investigation agency vide order dated 02.04.2009 from the court of Ld. SDJM FP Jhirka. Thereafter, P.O. challan of the accused Ganga Ram was filed before the Court on 20.09.2008. Subsequently, accused Ganga Ram was arrested on 21.10.2020 and he was produced before the court by filling an application for seeking police custody on the ground that lathi used by the accused has to be JANKI BHATT 2026.04.28 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-55680-2022 (O&M) -2- recovered. However, the said lathi was not got recorved by the police on the version that same has broken in the incident. Thereafter, accused Ganga Ram was lodged in judicial custody for awaiting challan against him. Instead of filling challan, the application for discharge of the accused has been filed by the investigation agency, which is against law and facts against the cannons of natural justice and criminal jurisprudence. 3. Learned State counsel submits that upon investigation, the prosecution found Ganga Ram not to be involved in the alleged occurrence, and accordingly, he was discharged. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the paper-book, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order dated 15.01.2021. Moreover, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of discharge, a revision petition could have been filed. The present proceedings before this Court are, therefore, not maintainable. Moreover, the trial is at the fag end and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 15 witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 22.04.2026 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JANKI BHATT 2026.04.28 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh