Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-22673-2024(O&M)
Reserved on :18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 28.04.2026
Darshan Singh & Ors.
..... Petitioners
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab&
Punjab Anr.
..... Respondents
Respondent
[
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Argued by:
by Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab.
Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter being referred to as 'CrPC' only, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.84 84 dated 07.11.2022,, Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa.. Vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioners are facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code Code.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Satnam Singh', S , hereinafter being referred to as ''complainant/respondent complainant/respondent No.2'' only.
only It was stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that on 06.11.2022, at about 06:00-07:00 pm, he was going home from his field on his tractor. According to complainant/respondent No.2,, on the way near Grain Market, Market 'Gurpiar Singh' and 'Arshdeep Singh' met him, they GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 2 intercepted his tractor and exhorted to teach a lesson for seeking passage through their land. As per complainant/respondent No.2 No.2, 'Arshdeep shdeep Singh' picked-up up a brick brick-bat and hit the same on the chest st of complainant/respondent No.2, whereas 'Gurpiar Singh' caught hold of the collar of the complainant/respondent No.2, pulled him down from the tractor and then inflicted injury on the head of complainant/respondent No.2 with the help of a kirch.
3. It was further stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the above-named above amed two assailants were joined by 'Darshan Singh', 'Jagsir Singh', 'Kuldeep Singh', 'Hardeep Singh' Singh',, 'Gurdeep Singh' and 'Avtar Singh',, who supported 'Arshdeep Singh'. The complainant/respondent No.2 further alleged that in the meantime, 'Labh Kaur' Kaur', grandmother dmother of the complainant/respondent No.2, arrived on the spot, and when she was trying to handover dinner to the complainant/respondent No.2, she was pushed on the ground by 'Avtar Singh', as a result of which her tooth broke.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, two accused named by complainant/respondent No.2, namely 'Avtar Singh' and 'Gurmit 'Gurm Singh' were found to be innocent and therefore, they have not been prosecuted.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that instant case is the live example of misuse of process of law by using the law GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 3 enforcement agency, i.e. police, and that the prosecution of the petitioners on the complaint of complainant/respondent No.2 is patently illegal and in violation of settled principles of law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the falsity of the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 petitioners, can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served as foundation for the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 had levelled specific allegations against 'Avtar Singh', qua the fact that he pushed 'Labh Kaur', which resulted into breaking of her tooth. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of investigation, abovesaid 'Avtar Singh' has been found to be innocent, and thus, the very credibility of the allegations tions of complainant/respondent No.2 stands shattered.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in the present case, the allegations against other co co-accused, accused, namely 'Gurmit Singh', have also been found to be false during the course of investigation, and he (Gurmit Singh) has not been chall challaned by the police.
While referring to the abovementioned events, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the abovementioned outcome of investigation makes it abundantly abundantly clear that the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 was nothing, but a bundle of lies.
8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, otherwise also, the allegations contained in the FIR itself shows that firstly no grievous injury, whatsoever, has been alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioners and secondly, there is no allegation against the petitioner that except supporting the main accused, namely 'Arshdeep Singh' and 'Gurp 'Gurpiar iar Singh', they played any GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 4 role in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners simply being present on the spot, doing nothing and supporting the main accused, namely 'Arshdeep Singh' and 'Gurpiar Singh', who had already inflicted injuries on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 does not amount the commission of any offence.
9. While referring to the principles of law laid down in the cases case of 'Indian Indian Oil Corporation V/s NEPC India Limited & Ors.' (2006) 6 SCC 736,, 'Madhavrao 'Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V/s Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre' 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, 'State State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal' 1992 SCC (Cri) 426,, 'Rupan Deol Bajaj V/s Kanwar Pal Singh Gill' 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, 1059 it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, the extraordinary jurisdiction,, vested in this Court under Section 482 of CrPC, should be invoked. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, pet the principles of law laid down in the abovementioned cases squarely cover the factual matrix of the present case, and therefore, in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction jurisdiction,, the FIR in question should be quashed qua the petitioners.
10. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2.
No.2. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the investigation has already been completed leted and after investigation, investigation, it has been found that the petitioners along with their co-accused, co namely 'Arshdeep Singh and 'Gurpiar Singh', had committed the offence under Section Sectionss 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC.
IPC According to learned State Counsel, since since the challan in this case has already GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 5 been filed and the consideration on the point of framing of charge is yet to take place, place, at this stage, the quashing of FIR against the petitioners, against whom sufficient evidence has been collected by the Investiga Investigating ting Agency, shall amount to miscarriage of justice.
11. According to learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2, the Investigating Agency has acted in a totally impartial manner manner,, and that is why two of the accused, who were named in the FIR FIR, have ve not been prosecuted by the police. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 that in a petition for quashing of FIR, a mini trial should not be conducted by this Court and, merely, on the basis of contents of the petition, it cannot be observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false.
12. As per learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 once on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, vis-à-vis vis report under Section 173 CrPC the abovementioned offence is made out,, the veracity of the claim of the complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be adjudged in the quashing petition. In support of his arguments arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has referred to the principles of law laid down complainant/respondent by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of 'Neeharika Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Others'2021 2021 SCC OnlineSC SC 315, 315 'Bhajan Lal' (supra), 'Sadiq Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of Karnataka , Criminal Appeal No.4728 of 2025 Karnataka', 2025, 'M/s M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.' Anr. 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 175 175, and 'Muskan Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)' (Sataniya) Criminal Appeal No.4752 of 2025 2025.
13. The record has been perused carefully. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 6
14. In the present case, it is relevant to note here that right from the very beginning, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioners that they had formed an unlawful assembly and the abovementioned unlawful assembly was res responsible ponsible for causing injury on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 and 'Labh Kaur'.. Once on the basis of contents of the FIR, vis-à-vis vis report under Section 173 CrPC, the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out, at this stage, e, when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence, the veracity of the allegations contained in the final report cannot be adjudged. Such decision can be taken only on completion of trial, when the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, vis-à-vis vis the defence, is available on record.
15. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that in the present case although final report under Section 173 CrPC has been filed by the police, but the decision on the point of framing of charge is yet to take place. While giving an opportunity on the point of framing of charge, the learned trial Court shall be having the pprivilege rivilege to look into the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, such privilege is not available to this Court.
16. With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the guiding principles, wherein extraordinary raordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR can be exercised, have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Neeharika Neeharika Infrastructure (supra). Those guidelines prescribe that that:
"a)) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 7 Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
b) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
c) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
d)) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, n, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
e) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability ty or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
f) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
g) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
h) Ordinarily, the courts urts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
i) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, ary, not overlapping;
j) Save in exceptional cases where non non-interference interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
k) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
l) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 8 reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the compl complaint/FIR aint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
m) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
n) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self self-restraint restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
o) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court hhas as to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
p) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashi quashing ng petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 9 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim terim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justi justified fied in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quas quashing hing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
q) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, af after ter considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
r) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 10 which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
17. In addition to above, in the case of 'Ch. Bhajan Lal' (supra),the (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on the question of quashing of FIR has laid down that the FIR can be quashed in the following circumstances:-
circumstances:
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 cconstitute onstitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
b) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officerss 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 complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose se the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
d) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non non-cognizable cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
e) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd 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 provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 11 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance 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.
18. Similarly in the case of 'Sadiq Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Hanchinmani' (supra),, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that police investigation should be allowed to proceed unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the High Court should not interfere with the investigation investigation when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable offences.
19. In the case of 'Balaji Balaji Traders Traders' (supra),, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly in the 'rarest of rare cases'. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allegations in FIR or complaint must be taken at face value and accepted in their entirety to assess whether they disclose a cognizable offence.
20. In the case of 'Muskan'' (supra) (supra),, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that that the Court should not conduct a mini mini-trial trial at the stage of quashing and that quashing of FIR should be an exception and exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further held that Courts cannot embark upon an eenquiry nquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 12
21. If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light of the principles of law laid down in the abovementioned cases, it transpires that at this stage, it is not possible to draw an inference that on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, vis-à-vis vis vis report under Section 173 CrPC, CrPC the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. On the basis of plea take taken n by the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to dra draw an inference that the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition fails to meet the requisite parameters prescribed for quashing of FIR in question.
22. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. The he present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly. However, in view of the fact that the charge in the present case is yet to be framed, it is clarified that any observation made in the present order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court at the time of fframing raming of charge or any other subsequent stage, shall be at liberty to form its independent opinion on the basis of material produced by the Investigating Agency.
23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH))
JUDGE
28.04.202
2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.04.28 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document