Petitioner sought quashing of summons under Section 482 CrPC. Court dismissed petition as charges were already framed, dismissing the specific plea while reserving liberty to challenge the framing order separately.
Petition disposed; liberty reserved to file fresh petition challenging the order framing charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
`1
252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.13581 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
Jasvir Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another … Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Parampreet Singh Paul, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J .
Criminal No. 53 dated 08.07.2019, under Sections 302, 34, 120B IPC and sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act Complaint
Sonia Puri 2024.11.07 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-13581-2021
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
05.11.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No.
Sonia Puri 2024.11.07 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking quashing of summons is maintainable after charges have been framed.
Whether the present petition can challenge the framing of charges which has not been explicitly pleaed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jasvir Singh
State of Punjab
Other Respondent
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
