SANDEEP NANGIA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/5545/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010163592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/4827/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/5545/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP NANGIA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. SUNEEL SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M 5545/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioners' petition to quash FIR No. 77, holding that the allegations prima-facie disclose cognizable offences and disputed factual questions must be resolved by the trial court, not through inherent jurisdiction proceedings. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioners raised defences based on CCTV footage and alternative narratives about the July 20, 2025 incident at Motia Blue Ridge Society, these contested factual issues—including whether assaults occurred, threats were made, or a mobile phone was snatched—cannot be adjudicated at the FIR quashing stage. The court emphasized that inherent powers are exercised sparingly only when allegations disclose no offence or proceedings show manifest mala fide. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/5545/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M 5545/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioners' petition to quash FIR No. 77, holding that the allegations prima-facie disclose cognizable offences and disputed factual questions must be resolved by the trial court, not through inherent jurisdiction proceedings. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioners raised defences based on CCTV footage and alternative narratives about the July 20, 2025 incident at Motia Blue Ridge Society, these contested factual issues—including whether assaults occurred, threats were made, or a mobile phone was snatched—cannot be adjudicated at the FIR quashing stage. The court emphasized that inherent powers are exercised sparingly only when allegations disclose no offence or proceedings show manifest mala fide. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case