DULI CHAND AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/10698/2020

Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010318942020

Filing Number

CRM-M/17023/2020

Filing Date

06-Mar-2020

Registration No

CRM-M/10698/2020

Registration Date

07-Mar-2020

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.3 - PROCEEDING STAYED IN QUASHING ( 197 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DULI CHAND AND OTHERS

    Adv. SUNIL SIHAG

  2. 2.BAL RAM

  3. 3.MAHENDER

  4. 4.LAL CHAND

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.TARA CHAND

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition as not maintainable because the petitioners challenged only the summoning order rather than the complaint itself, and had an available statutory remedy through revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. The court held that Section 482 inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances showing manifest abuse of process or gross miscarriage of justice, which were not present here. Liberty was granted to file a revision petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/10698/2020

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition as not maintainable because the petitioners challenged only the summoning order rather than the complaint itself, and had an available statutory remedy through revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. The court held that Section 482 inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances showing manifest abuse of process or gross miscarriage of justice, which were not present here. Liberty was granted to file a revision petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case