HANISH KUMAR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB — CRR/1049/2020

Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010583302020

Filing Number

CRR/33597/2020

Filing Date

31-Jul-2020

Registration No

CRR/1049/2020

Registration Date

31-Jul-2020

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

37.6 - PROCEEDINGS STAYED IN CRIMINAL REVISION ( 196 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HANISH KUMAR

    Adv. MOHD. SALIM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: CRR 1049/2020 The High Court dismissed Hanish Kumar's petition challenging a lower court's order permitting the complainant to examine a handwriting expert under Section 246(6) Cr.P.C. in a forgery case. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, holding that the complainant could present supplementary witnesses (including experts not originally listed) if evidence advances justice, distinguishing between an earlier rejected application regarding a sale deed and the current application concerning the disputed affidavit at issue's core. The judgment emphasized that procedural technicalities should not exclude relevant evidence essential for truth-discovery in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Jul-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/1049/2020

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CRR 1049/2020 The High Court dismissed Hanish Kumar's petition challenging a lower court's order permitting the complainant to examine a handwriting expert under Section 246(6) Cr.P.C. in a forgery case. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, holding that the complainant could present supplementary witnesses (including experts not originally listed) if evidence advances justice, distinguishing between an earlier rejected application regarding a sale deed and the current application concerning the disputed affidavit at issue's core. The judgment emphasized that procedural technicalities should not exclude relevant evidence essential for truth-discovery in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case