A petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner’s request, with liberty granted to raise all grounds before the trial court; the decision does not rule on the merits and is of limited precedential value, serving only as a procedural precedent regarding withdrawal and reserving pleas.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/46694/2025 of MANJEET KAUR Vs SURINDERPAL & ANR. |
| CNR | PHHC011348722025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Procedural; no substantive ruling |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 482 CrPC) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Procedural: Punjab & Haryana trial courts regarding liberty to raise withdrawn pleas |
| Persuasive For | No substantive precedential value; persuasive only on the practice of withdrawal and liberty granted |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- When a Section 482 CrPC petition is withdrawn in the High Court, explicit liberty may be sought and granted to raise the same pleas before the trial court.
- Such an order does not decide or comment upon the merits of the case or the legal questions raised.
- Practitioners should note that withdrawal with liberty preserves the petitioner’s ability to present identical grounds before the lower court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded that counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise the same pleas at the trial stage.
- The court, exercising its discretion, permitted the withdrawal and specifically recorded the liberty for the petitioner.
- No substantive analysis or determination of legal or factual issues occurred; the order is procedural in nature and does not adjudicate any questions of law.
- Pending applications were rendered infructuous as a consequence of the main petition’s withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage.
- Requested liberty to raise all the pleas taken in this petition before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage.
Respondent
Not recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The petitioner filed a petition (CRM-M-46694-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- At the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw the petition, seeking liberty to raise identical grounds before the trial court.
- No decision on the merits was sought or made.
- The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the stated liberty.
Statutory Analysis
- The order was made on a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
- No statutory interpretation or argument was discussed; the judgment contains only procedural directions regarding withdrawal and liberty to raise pleas.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reaffirms the procedural norm that, upon withdrawal of a petition with liberty, the petitioner is entitled to raise the same pleas before the trial court.
- No new procedures or innovations were implemented.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Order made in keeping with established practice of withdrawal with liberty in Section 482 CrPC matters.