KASHMIR KAUR vs KARANJIT SINGH — CRM-M/26921/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010784222026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36574/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26921/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KASHMIR KAUR

    Adv. SANJEEV KUMAR BAWA

  2. 2.KARANJIT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KARANJIT SINGH

  2. 2.KARANJIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/26921/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kashmir Kaur's petition challenging the trial court's rejection of her applications to amend a cheque bounce complaint and introduce additional bank statements as evidence. The court held that both applications filed at the trial's conclusion after defense evidence closed were untimely and appeared to fill gaps in the complainant's case without satisfactory explanation for the delay, thereby prejudicing the accused and violating procedural requirements for amendments under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26921/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/26921/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kashmir Kaur's petition challenging the trial court's rejection of her applications to amend a cheque bounce complaint and introduce additional bank statements as evidence. The court held that both applications filed at the trial's conclusion after defense evidence closed were untimely and appeared to fill gaps in the complainant's case without satisfactory explanation for the delay, thereby prejudicing the accused and violating procedural requirements for amendments under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case