Ramandeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17750-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.05.2026 RAMANDEEP KAUR ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :

Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.01.2026, Annexure P-7, vide which evidence of the petitioner-complainant was closed.

2.

Learned counsel submits that upon the unfortunate demise of her husband due to the injuries allegedly inflicted by respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the petitioner had stepped into the proceedings and substituted herself as the complainant, however, the trial Court without appreciating the aforesaid peculiar facts, proceeded to close evidence, thereby causing serious prejudice to her case, thus, she prays for one effective opportunity to lead her remaining evidence.

- 2 - 3.

No order prejudicial to the rights of the respondents is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of effecting service upon them.

4.

Heard.

5.

The circumstances brought on record indicate that the complaint was filed by the husband of the petitioner on 09.06.2023 and cognizance thereof was taken by the trial Court on the very same day. Following his demise on 06.07.2025, the name of the petitioner was substituted as complainant only on 16.09.2025 and during the intervening period,she remained under considerable emotional distress and mental anguish. Not losing sight of the fact that the learned trial Court had been magnanimous in granting opportunities to the husband of the petitioner, however these cannot be construed to have been given to her, as she was merely afforded 6 chances to pursue the case. 6.

Tritely, a litigant ought not to suffer for circumstances beyond her control, particularly when the lapse is not attributable to her conduct. The procedural law is intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same on technicalities. Moreover, no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the respondents if one effective opportunity is granted to enable the petitioner to conclude her evidence. 7.

In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 is hereby set aside and this Court, being persuaded, finds it to be just and appropriate to grant one

- 3 - effective opportunity to the complainant-petitioner to lead evidence in support of her case.

8.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 08.05.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No