GURMEET SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR — CRM-M/14832/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010446842026

Filing Number

CRM-M/19015/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/14832/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURMEET SINGH

    Adv. YOGESH GOEL

  2. 2.GURMEET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

  2. 2.GURMEET SINGH

  3. 3.BEANT KAUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/14832/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Gurmeet Singh's petition seeking to quash trial court orders that failed to examine an official witness from the Deputy Commissioner's office in a 2013 fraud case (FIR No. 129). The court found no merit, reasoning that the trial court had granted sufficient opportunities for witness examination, the relevant documents were already produced and exhibited through another official, and the prosecution failed to ensure the witness's presence despite adequate notice. The court upheld the trial court's decision to close prosecution evidence, noting it balanced procedural fairness with expeditious trial disposal as mandated by judicial directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/14832/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/14832/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Gurmeet Singh's petition seeking to quash trial court orders that failed to examine an official witness from the Deputy Commissioner's office in a 2013 fraud case (FIR No. 129). The court found no merit, reasoning that the trial court had granted sufficient opportunities for witness examination, the relevant documents were already produced and exhibited through another official, and the prosecution failed to ensure the witness's presence despite adequate notice. The court upheld the trial court's decision to close prosecution evidence, noting it balanced procedural fairness with expeditious trial disposal as mandated by judicial directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case