Dismissed¶16

Deepak Mahajan v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2025CRWP/3290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab-Haryana HC 04.09.2025 CRWP-3290-2025 O&M Manisha Batra J; Deepak Mahajan v State of Punjab & others (resp. No. 2 Narinder Saini); Articles 226/227 Constitution; Section 340 Cr.P.C.; seeks quashing of JMFC Pathankot dismissal (order 18.09.2024) of application for tracing mobile location, call details (2018) and CCTV footage; telecom data retained only two years; claim speculative, petition vague; dismissed with Rs. 5,000 costs to DLSA Pathankot; petitioner in person; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petitioner directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Pathankot within one month. ¶16

Deepak Mahajan Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; petitioner directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Pathankot within one month.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the JMFC Pathankot order dated 18.09.2024 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. should be allowed, i.e. whether directions should be given to the mobile phone/service provider company and police to trace respondent No. 2's location, check call details of any other mobile number, and obtain CCTV footage of certain places.

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner did not lead any preliminary evidence before the trial Court in support of his assertions regarding respondent No. 2's alleged alteration of the demarcation date.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Telecom companies preserve data for only two years, after which it is deleted; the petitioner's request for call records from 2018 is far beyond the prescribed retention period.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner's claim appears speculative, as he is uncertain both about the exact date of respondent No. 2's visit and about the mobile number allegedly used by him.ratio¶15
With respect to CCTV footage, the petitioner did not specify the shop or location where the cameras were installed, and even if such cameras existed, whether the footage would still be available and whether any such direction could be issued would require consideration.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional law / Criminal procedure — Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.), CRWP-3290-2025 (O&M), decided 04.09.2025: Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Deepak Mahajan (in person) seeking quashing of the JMFC Pathankot order dated 18.09.2024 dismissing his application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for directions to the mobile/service provider company and police to trace respondent No. 2-Narinder Saini's location, check call details from 2018 and obtain CCTV footage. Court held the petitioner led no preliminary evidence before the trial Court; telecom companies retain data for only two years so 2018 records are beyond the prescribed period; the claim was speculative (uncertain visit date and mobile number); CCTV camera locations were unspecified and footage availability doubtful; petition lacked specificity and was vague. Dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- payable to District Legal Services Authority, Pathankot within one month. No cases cited.

¶1

CRWP-3290-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

112

¶4

CRWP-3290-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.2025

¶5

Deepak Mahajan ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶9

Present:Petitioner in person. (Through VC)

¶10

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for giving direction to the mobile phone company and service provider company as well as to the police to investigate and trace the location of respondent No. 2-Narinder Saini had been dismissed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot. The petitioner had also prayed that if respondent No. 2 had any other mobile number, then call details of that number and his contact numbers be also checked and also to get the CCTV footage of certain places.

¶12

The brief facts of the case as emerging from the perusal of the record are that in March or April, 2018, respondent No. 2-Narinder Saini, who was working as a Draftsman, had visited the suit property for demarcation and marking. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had come to the property either between 14^th and 21^st March 2018, or somewhere between 10^th

¶13

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRWP-3290-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶15

March and 10^th April 2018. However, the petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 gave false testimony in Court to alter the date of demarcation. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner did not lead any preliminary evidence before the trial Court in support of these assertions. It is a settled fact that telecom companies preserve data for only two years, after which the same is deleted. The petitioner, however, is seeking call records from the year 2018, which is far beyond the prescribed period. Moreover, his claim appears speculative, as he is uncertain not only about the exact date of the visit but also about the mobile number allegedly used by respondent No. 2. With respect to the CCTV footage, the petitioner has not specified the shop or location where the cameras were installed. Even assuming that CCTV cameras existed, it would still require consideration whether such footage would be available at this stage, or whether any such direction could be issued by the Court. The petition thus lacks specificity, is vague in nature, and is poorly drafted, making it difficult to discern the petitioner’s precise case. By filing such a petition, the petitioner has unnecessarily consumed the Court’s valuable time. Finding no merit, the petition is dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/-.

¶16

The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid cost with the District Legal Services Authority, Pathankot within a period of one month from today. Let a copy of this order be sent to DLSA concerned for intimation.

¶17

04.09.2025

¶18

Waseem Ansari

¶19

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶20

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶21

Yes/No Yes/No

¶22

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deepak Mahajan v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Mahajan v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prince Ghai Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Kharb Vs Jai Kishan

Gurinder Singh Vs Manpreet Singh

Dikashender Vs State of Haryana

Rekha Alias Rekha Rani Vs State of Punjab

M/S Sikka Enterprieses Vs Ar Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.