CRM-M-1117-2023 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 CRM-M-1117-2023 Decided on : 15.07.2026 Sanjeev Juneja and others . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [corresponding Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023], seeking quashing of Complaint No.COMI/104/2017, dated 13.11.2017, titled as, “Subhash Chander Sharma v. Gagan Janeja @ Vicky & Ors.” (Annexure P-2), the summoning order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-5), allegedly passed in violation of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., and order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-6), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that summoning order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. In this regard, on 14.07.2026, learned counsel addressed the following submissions:- “ During the course of short hearing, learned counsel for the JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-1117-2023 - 2 - petitioners submits that regarding the incident, respondent No. 2 had got registered one FIR No. 248 dated 06.10.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 149, 109 IPC at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, which was mentioned in the subsequent complaint also, but petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case without even calling investigation report in the police case in compliance to the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. To respond over, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks pass over as arguing counsel Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate is not available. In the interest of justice, list again on 15.07.2026.” 3. Today, Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, has appeared and submits that the mandate of Section 210 Cr.P.C. does not appear to have been considered by the learned trial Court, as the impugned summoning order is completely silent on the said aspect. 4. Mr. Yogesh Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Navnit Kumar Narang & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another; Law Finder Doc. Id. #2570590. 5. Heard. 6. In view of the submissions addressed and recorded here-above, present petition is allowed to the limited extent of setting-aside the impugned summoning order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-5), with a direction to the learned trial Court to pass a fresh order, after considering and complying with the mandate of Section 210 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law. At the time of reconsideration of the matter, respondent No.2/complainant shall appear before the learned trial Court to assist the Court. However, it shall be open to the petitioners/proposed accused either JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-1117-2023 - 3 - to appear or not to appear before the learned trial Court, until a fresh order on summoning is passed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 15, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document