RAJ BANSAL vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA — CRM-M/9276/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,120B,506,467,468,471,201 IPC. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010226822024

Filing Number

CRM-M/13790/2024

Filing Date

16-Feb-2024

Registration No

CRM-M/9276/2024

Registration Date

19-Feb-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Coram

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,120B,506,467,468,471,201 IPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJ BANSAL

    Adv. PARMINDER SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA

  2. 2.SURESH KUMAR

  3. 3.GANESH

  4. 4.ASIM GARG

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Aman ChaudharyView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the trial court's order closing prosecution evidence dated 20.01.2024, holding that procedural law should advance justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. Finding the prosecution's delay attributable to multiple intervening proceedings (2016-2022) rather than negligence, the court granted the prosecution seven effective opportunities to complete its evidence, reasoning that all material witness testimony is essential for just adjudication and the accused retains cross-examination rights. Costs of Rs.20,000 were imposed on the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/9276/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the trial court's order closing prosecution evidence dated 20.01.2024, holding that procedural law should advance justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. Finding the prosecution's delay attributable to multiple intervening proceedings (2016-2022) rather than negligence, the court granted the prosecution seven effective opportunities to complete its evidence, reasoning that all material witness testimony is essential for just adjudication and the accused retains cross-examination rights. Costs of Rs.20,000 were imposed on the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case