Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 22.04.2026
Pronounced on: 27.04.2026
Uploaded on: 27.04.2026
INDERJEET SINGH ...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Shakti Mohan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
None for the complainant.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 108 dated 07.04.2021 under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar, Mansa, District Mansa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the final report dated 15.05.2021 submitted under Section 173 Cr.P/C.
2. First information report was lodged on statement of G.S., father of the prosecutrix, who reported to the police that he had three children. His eldest daughter S.K. was married and his younger K.K. was engaged with brother-in- law of S.K. She was a student of Class XI in Government School. On 05.04.2021, K.K. had gone to visit S.K. at her village Chehlan Wala. The same night, a boy namely Inderjeet Singh son of Naib Singh, resident of his village, enticed K.K. on the pretext of marriage. K.K. was a minor and they had been AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -2- searching for her. That day, he recovered K.K. from Ramditte Kainchian Chowk. He dropped her home and came to report the matter. Action against Inderjeet Singh was prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he enticed away minor daughter of the complainant on the pretext of marriage. Referring to statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was urged that prosecutrix herself invited the petitioner on 04.04.2021 by making a phone call after which she moved with petitioner and remained in his company till 06.06.2021. Prosecutrix stated that during the period, she remained in company of the petitioner, he did not exert any force nor she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Learned counsel further submits that in order to save his family pride and honour, complainant murdered his daughter K.K. and case vide FIR No. 133 dated 09.05.2021 under Sections 302, 201 Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Mansa. Complainant was arrested and was subjected to trial. He was later acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 12.01.2022 when all prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. Since Prosecutrix K.K. was dead, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be gross abuse of the process of law in view of statement made by the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Investigation of the case was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Petitioner had committed no offence and had no role to play, he had been involved with ulterior motive. No ingredients of the offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC were made out against the petitioner and the FIR deserved to be quashed. In support AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -3- of his submissions, learned counsel refers to Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 743 and S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras 1965 AIR (SC) 945.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report and opposes the prayer of the petitioner submitting that contents of the first information report read with statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner and it was not a fit case to quash the FIR at the very inception without a full fledged trial. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Complainant initially appeared through Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate but later on did not chose to contest the petition.
6. Annexure R-1 is the statement of the prosecutrix appended with the status report filed by State of Punjab, which is reproduced as under:
"Stated that I am 17 years old and my date of birth is 25.10.2004. I am getting my statement recorded today of my own free will. We are three siblings. I have an elder sister and my younger brother is the youngest among us. My father is a farmer and my mother is a housewife. I am studying in -1 in Government Senior Secondary Girls School.
It was on 4-4-2021 that I called Inderjit and on my request he came to my house to pick me up. I went with him at 11 pm. We had gone Handyaya and subsequently our money got exhausted On 6-4-2021 we reached at Kanchiyan. Where the police along with my mother met us and caught us and brought us AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -4- to the police post. I had gone with Inderjit Singh of my own free will. During the time I stayed with him, he did not use any force. I have heard and read the statement which is correct."
7. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the parameters in terms of which the powers under section 482 of CrPC, 1973 could be exercised. The Court held that quashing may be appropriate:
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the ac- cused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cogniz-
able offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'com- plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not dis- close the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investiga- AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -5- tion is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magis- trate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so ab- surd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the pro- visions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the griev- ance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
8. In "Hira Lal V. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi" 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"It is a firmly established principle that, while examining a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court must refrain from conducting a mini-trial or undertaking a detailed evaluation of the evidence. The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised only in rare and AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -6- exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations in the FIR are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or fail to disclose any cognizable offence. When the FIR or complaint, in its face, discloses the basic ingredients of a cognizable offence, the appropriate course is to allow the process of investigation and trial to continue, rather than prematurely terminating the prosecution at an interlocutory stage. Interference at this stage would not only impede the investigative process but also defeat the very object of criminal justice."
9. The inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances, only where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to gross mis-carriage of justice or would result in abuse of process of law. While considering a petition for quashing the FIR, the Court cannot undertake a detailed scrutiny of evidence nor can adjudicate disputed questions of facts. Bare reading of the FIR, contents whereof are reproduced hereinabove, prima facie discloses ingredients of cognizable offences. Allegations of the lawful guardian of the minor K.K. are specific. At this stage, it is not the function of the Court to weigh pros and cons of prosecution case. Prime facie from the averments in the FIR, commission of cognizable offences are made out. The instant case does not fall within the parameters of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case(supra) and even though prosecutrix is no more, present is not a case fit enough to quash at the inception. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.27 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-28087-2022 (O&M) -7-
10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help at this stage as the judgment in S. Varadarajan case(supra) was rendered after a full fledged trial. Both in S. Varadarajan case(supra) and Mafat Lal's case (supra), prosecutrix had married the accused. In Mafat Lal's case (supra), the prosecutrix had joined the accused as appellant challenging the order of the High Court. It was those circumstances that the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
11. The petition is dismissed.
12. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case. Learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
April 27, 2026 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 16:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document