Gurdeep Singh Grewal v. State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Others
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 132+290 Gurdeep Singh Grewal ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
II) Kuldeep Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision:- 26.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh in CRM-M-41445-2025.
Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh for CRM-M-42268-2025.
***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) CRM-45261-2025 in CRM-M-41445-2025 and CRM-45259-2025 in CRM-M-42268-2025 In view of the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and the hearing of the main petitions is preponed from 20.01.2026 and the same are taken on Board today itself.
( 2 ) Main Case(s) This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions filed by petitioners, i.e. Gurdeep Singh Grewal and Kuldeep Singh. 2.
The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 to produce respondent No.5 before respondent No.4 for completion of KYC and other bank related formalities to enable encashment of cheque issued to the petitioners under compromise agreement pursuant to quashing of FIR No.95 dated 22.05.2023 registered under Sections 420, 120(B) of IPC, 1860 and Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and FIR No.94 dated 22.05.2023 registered under Sections 420, 120(B) of IPC, 1860 and Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, respectively. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the aforementioned FIRs have been registered against respondent No.5-Karan Sharma @ Vipin Kaushal, but later on the matter was compromised amongst the parties and in pursuant to that compromise, aforementioned FIRs have been quashed vide orders dated 20.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-28632-2025 and CRM-M-28633-2024. However, the terms and conditions of that compromise have not been complied with as respondent No.5 is currently lodged in District Jail, Sonepat in some other case. Respondent No.5 issued cheque, which has not been honoured as his KYC is not updated in bank and learned counsel for the petitoners limited his prayer to the extent that
( 3 ) Superintendent Jail, Sonepat be directed to facilitate respondent No.5 to update his KYC and petitioners are ready to bear all expenses. 4.
Heard.
5.
Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3- The Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, to facilitate respondent No.5, who is lodged in District Jail, Sonepat, after obtaining his consent, to update his KYC in jail premises only, and all the expenses will be borne by the petitioners.
5.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 26.11.2025 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No