Dismissed¶20

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2026CRM-M/52029/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

proclaimed person declaration; Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation order quashing; Section 174-A IPC FIR; Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition; compromise-based quashing; conditional interim stay dated 17.09.2025 subject to Rs.25,000 costs Punjab State Legal Services Authority Disaster Relief Fund; statements before Trial Court; JMFC Sunam memo No.375 dated 24.11.2025 non-appearance and non-deposit; dismissal for non-compliance; Illaqa Magistrate; CRM-M Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh; Vinod S. Bhardwaj; 18.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed because the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2025 and has not appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. ¶20

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.08.2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the consequential proceedings (FIR under Section 174-A IPC / Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) were liable to be quashed, the petition having been filed on the basis of an alleged compromise between the parties. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed because the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2025 and has not appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

¶20

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-52029-2025(O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral; decision 18.02.2026): Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Inderjit Singh challenging the order dated 30.08.2025 declaring him a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC (Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), filed on the basis of an alleged compromise. By interim order dated 17.09.2025 this Court stayed the operation of the proclamation order (Annexure P-6) subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Disaster Relief Fund (A/c No.44426937384, IFSC SBIN0014656, SBI Sector 68, SAS Nagar) and recording of the parties' statements before the Trial Court; notice of motion was fixed for 26.11.2025. A report from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam (memo No.375 dated 24.11.2025) showed that neither the petitioner nor the complainant appeared for recording of statements and the ordered cost was not deposited; there was likewise no representation on the date of final hearing. Held: the petition is DISMISSED for non-compliance with this Court's order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No counsel was present for the petitioner or respondent No.2; Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab appeared for the State.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

203

¶3

CRM-M-52029-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2026

¶4

Inderjit Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶7

Present :- No n e for the petitioner. Mr . Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punja b

¶8

No n e for respondent No.2.

¶9

¶10

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶11

Th e present petition has been f iled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nag a rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 c hallenging the order dated 30.08.2025 whe r eby the petitioner had been de c lared as a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and all consequ e ntial proceedings including registration of F I R under Section 174-A of Indi a n Penal Code, 1860 (Section 209 Bharatiya N yaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶12

Th e matter came up for hearing o n 17.09.2025, when following order was passe d :-

¶13

“T h e learned counsel for the p etitioner contends that a co m promise has been arrived at bet w een the parties for which the qu a shing petition has been filed i n which on 08.09.2025 the pet i tioner has asked to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Pu n jab State Legal Services Aut h ority, Disaster Relief Fund, Ac c ount No.44426937384, IFSC Co d e: SBIN0014656 SBI, Sector 68, SAS Nagar and the parties have been directed to record their sta t ements before the Trial Court. Notice of motion for 26.11.20 2 5. Subject to a deposit of Rs.25, 0 00/- as costs with the Punjab Sta t e Legal Services Authority, D i saster Relief Fund, Account

¶14

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

¶16

203 CRM-M-52029-2025(O&M)

¶17

No.44426937384, IFSC Code: SBIN0014656 SBI, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, the operation of the order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P- 6) shall remain stayed.”

¶18

A report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam vide memo No.375 dated 24.11.2025 as per which neither the petitioner nor the complainant appeared before the Court to get their statements recorded and even the cost of Rs.25,000/- as ordered on 17.09.2025 has not been deposited.

¶19

Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

¶20

Since, the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court and has not appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, hence, the present petition is dismissed.

¶21

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶22

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 18.02.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶23

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

R.K. Jain Vs State of Haryana

Mukul Dhall and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rahul @ Rathore Vs State of Haryana