Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 82845 (PNJ)

JATINDER MANN v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRM-M/40333/2025 · 2025-07-30

Sanjay Vashisth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-40333-2025 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CRM-M-40333-2025 Date of decision: 30.07.2025 JATINDER MANN ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral) 1. Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashing of order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed in application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C (Annexure P-7) seeking correction of chargesheet and for framing fresh charges against respondents No.2 to 4 in case bearing No.CHI- 187-2016, dated 02.02.2016 titled as “State Vs. Bimal Narang & Others. 2. By assigning detailed reasons, third application filed by the petitioner/complainant has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. The motive behind filing the application has also been discussed in the order, wherein it has been observed that the complainant party is in possession of the ancestral property of the accused persons, and the purpose of the petitioner/complainant appears to be merely to delay the proceedings. This plea was, in fact, taken by the accused in their reply to the application filed by the petitioner/complainant. 3. The reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 are exhaustive and do not warrant any interference. Moreover, after framing of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-40333-2025 - 2- charges and the commencement of recording of evidence, it is the prerogative of the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law and as per its convenience. 4. Filing applications unnecessarily, one after the other is never appreciated in the judicial process, that too for the similar relief time and again. 5. In view of the above observations, this Court finds no fault in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 30.07.2025 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment