SIMRAN KAUR DHANDI vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/59031/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Nov-2025

CNR: PHHC011670942025

Filing Number

CRM-M/87546/2025

Filing Date

13-Oct-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/59031/2025

Registration Date

15-Oct-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIMRAN KAUR DHANDI

    Adv. Munish Puri

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an order declaring Simran Kaur Dhandi a proclaimed person in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The court found the trial court committed a procedural defect by failing to comply with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates that proclamation must be publicly read at a conspicuous place in the area where the accused ordinarily resides. The executing constable's statement only documented posting copies on the house door and court notice board, with no evidence of public reading, rendering the proclamation order perverse and unsustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/59031/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an order declaring Simran Kaur Dhandi a proclaimed person in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The court found the trial court committed a procedural defect by failing to comply with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates that proclamation must be publicly read at a conspicuous place in the area where the accused ordinarily resides. The executing constable's statement only documented posting copies on the house door and court notice board, with no evidence of public reading, rendering the proclamation order perverse and unsustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case