The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC due to non-appearance of the petitioners with a speaking (though brief) order. The decision does not address the merits of the legal issues raised in the quashing petition, and such a dismissal lacks precedential value as to the substantive law on quashing. This order serves as procedural precedent confined to the facts of non-prosecution.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/28657/2025 of GURAMRIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010809352025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL) |
| Precedent Value | Only as to procedural dismissal upon non-appearance; no value on merits of quashing |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 482 CrPC: Inherent Powers) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of the petitioners or their counsel at the time of hearing. The court did not consider or adjudicate on the substance or merits of the issue of quashing FIR or proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The order is procedural, not a decision on law or facts underlying the petition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | State counsel filed a status report; none appeared for the petitioners during hearing; petition dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Lower courts only as to dismissal being an available procedural consequence for non-appearance; not on merits of quashing law. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive on law regarding Section 482 CrPC quashing; may be cited as to practice on non-prosecution. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that non-appearance by petitioners or their counsel can result in dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution.
- The substantive issues of quashing (under Section 482 CrPC) are not decided; further remedy by filing for restoration/removal of default remains open if so allowed by rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded the appearance of the State counsel and the non-appearance of the petitioners.
- A status report was submitted by the State.
- Due to absence of the petitioners, the court ordered the petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
- No discussion or adjudication took place regarding the merits of the quashing plea, legal principles, or the facts alleged in the petition.
- The order is a procedural one based solely on the parties’ conduct, not a reasoned legal pronouncement on Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- None (no appearance; no submissions recorded).
Respondent (State)
- State counsel appeared and filed status report by affidavit.
- No other argument on merits or law is recorded in the order.
Factual Background
The criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed by Guramrit Singh and others seeking relief in connection with proceedings against them. On the date of hearing, counsel for the State appeared and submitted a status report, while there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The underlying factual dispute or offences are not summarized or discussed by the court in this order.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory interpretation or analysis is provided. The court exercised its inherent procedural discretion to dismiss for non-prosecution.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural innovations are set out in the order. The court followed the typical practice of dismissal for non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The disposition follows standard procedural practice for non-prosecution.