Pardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 240 )
CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
PARDEEP SINGH
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 8.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1.   First Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.], seeking
issuance of appropriate directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to duly
consider and act upon the statement dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-6)
made by the petitioner while in the custody of respondent No.3, and to
proceed thereupon in accordance with law, particularly in view of the
grievous injuries allegedly sustained by the petitioner and the failure of
respondent No.3 to discharge his statutory duties, purportedly in
connivance with the private respondents.
2.   Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father,
Sukhwinder Singh, along with his nephew Lakhwinder Singh, had
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
( 2 )
purchased the land in question, got the same mutated in their favour and
remained in possession thereof. It is alleged that private respondents Mirja
Singh and his brothers had been persistently harassing the petitioner’s
family by forcibly diverting water into their plot despite repeated
objections and requests made before the village respectable persons and
the Panchayat. On 10.11.2025 at about 4:00 A.M., the private respondents,
along with certain unidentified persons, allegedly entered the land, poured
water therein and commenced excavation with a JCB machine. When the
petitioner’s family objected, the accused allegedly abused and threatened
them and, armed with sharp-edged weapons, forcibly entered their house.
It is further alleged that Mirja Singh assaulted petitioner-Pardeep Singh
with a kirpan, which, while the petitioner attempted to ward off the blow,
resulted in the severance of a finger of his left hand; Sukhdev Singh
thereafter allegedly inflicted a datar blow upon his head, while Baldev
Singh assaulted him after throwing him to the ground. Balwinder Singh is
alleged to have raised a lalkara and threatened the family. It is further
alleged that Kiranpreet Kaur, daughter-in-law of the petitioner’s family,
was abused, assaulted and her clothes were torn. The accused thereafter
allegedly fled the spot on the raising of alarm.
2.1. The petitioner sustained injuries on his head and finger, which
were duly recorded in the MLR and subsequently opined by the doctor to
be grievous in nature. Despite the petitioner’s MLR and allegations arising
from the very same occurrence, no case was registered against the private
respondents. The petitioner’s father accordingly submitted an application
dated 12.11.2025 to the SSP, Amritsar Rural, which was marked to the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
( 3 )
SHO, Police Station Tarsikka, on the same day. Despite the medical
opinion declaring the injuries grievous, no effective action was taken by
the police, compelling the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court.
3.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the private respondents in the
very occurrence in respect of which a criminal case was registered against
the petitioner and other co-accused at their instance, whereas no
corresponding case was registered against the private respondents. The
petitioner’s MLR duly substantiates the injuries suffered by him. It is
further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the police
seeking registration of the cross-case/cross-version, but no action was
taken. Earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court, the State
disclosed that no statement had been made by the petitioner and, on such
assurance, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the
authorities afresh upon recording of his statement.
3.1. It is further submitted that, during his custody in the case
registered at the instance of the private respondents, the petitioner’s
statement was duly recorded on 25.02.2026, specifically disclosing the
injuries allegedly caused to him by the private respondents. After being
released on regular bail, the petitioner again requested the police
authorities to act upon the said statement in accordance with law. Despite
the categorical stand earlier taken before this Court that, upon receipt of
the petitioner’s statement, the matter would be proceeded with in
accordance with law, no action has been taken till date. Learned counsel,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
( 4 )
therefore, submits that the continued inaction of the police is wholly
unjustified, particularly in view of the medical evidence corroborating the
petitioner’s allegations, and prays that appropriate directions be issued to
the competent authority to consider and proceed upon the petitioner’s
statement dated 25.02.2026 strictly in accordance with law.
4. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing
 
for respondents No.4 to 7, has vehemently opposed the present petition.
Learned State counsel has also placed on record a status report by way of
an affidavit of Baljit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural), on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3,
and, on the strength thereof, submits that no ground for interference is
made out. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition has been prayed
for.
5.   Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
meticulously examined the paper-book with their able assistance, this
Court finds that the petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2026 during the
course of investigation, whereupon his statement was recorded before the
Investigating Officer. The petitioner alleged that, on 09.11.2025 at about
5:30 A.M., a dispute had arisen between him and respondents No.4 to 7,
during which a scuffle ensued and he sustained injuries allegedly inflicted
by Mirja Singh and Sukhdev Singh with a kirpan and datar. The
Investigating Agency, however, upon examining the circumstances
surrounding the occurrence, found the version to be doubtful, observing
that the injuries could possibly have been sustained in self-defence at the
hands of Baldev Singh or could even have been self-inflicted with a view
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
( 5 )
to creating a defence. In view of the suspicious circumstances attending
the allegations, G.D. No.29 dated 25.02.2026 was recorded at Police
Station Tarsikka, Amritsar Rural.
5.1. It is, thus, evident that the allegations raised by the petitioner
 
have not remained unattended. The investigating agency has already taken
cognizance of the petitioner’s version, examined the same in the course of
investigation and, upon assessment of the material available, has chosen
not to initiate further criminal action against respondents No.4 to 7. This
Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, cannot substitute its
own assessment for that of the competent investigating agency or direct
registration of a criminal case merely on the basis of disputed factual
assertions, particularly when the allegations have already been subjected to
investigation.
5.2.   However, the conclusion arrived at by the investigating
agency would not, by itself, extinguish the petitioner’s remedies available
under law. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the action/inaction of the
police or seeks to pursue the allegations contained in his statement, it
would be open to him to avail the appropriate remedy before the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class concerned, in accordance with law. Any such
remedy shall be considered by the competent Court independently and on
its own merits, without being prejudiced by the observations contained
herein.
5.3.   Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the rival versions or the allegations raised by either side, the present
petition is dismissed with the liberty and subject to the observations
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23350-2026 (O&M)
( 6 )
recorded hereinabove. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the present
petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy
available to him in accordance with law.
6. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to
the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No
separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the
same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present
adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
31.08.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document