Anil Kumar vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6440 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anil Kumar vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Another on 19 December, 2025

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M)                                                  -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH




329                                              CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision:19.12.2025

Anil Kumar Singh                                      ... Petitioner

                                 Vs.

U.T. of Chandigarh & another                          ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:    Mr. Nitish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Viren Sibal, A.P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

            ...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The present petition has filed by the petitioner under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')

seeking quashing of FIR No.97, dated 15.08.2021, registered under Sections

380, 457, 34 and 411 IPC, at Police Station Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh and

all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition

are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of written

complaint submitted by complainant - Aashik Ilai alleging that he along

with one Mohammed Aslam was residing in a rented accommodation. On

the intervening night of 13.08.2021, someone entered into their room and

had committed theft of their cell phones. He had checked CCTV footage and

had found Sunny, who was already acquainted with him to be coming

1 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -2-

towards his house. He raised suspicion that their mobile phones had been

stolen by the aforementioned Sunny. By alleging that he had come to know

that cell phones of some other persons, namely, Nikhil Kumar, Akhilesh

Kumar and Neeraj had also been stolen by the aforementioned Sunny, he

prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were

initiated. During investigation, accused Chaman and Sunny were arrested.

Five cell phones were recovered from their custody. On the basis of

disclosure statement suffered by them, the present petitioner was nominated

as an accused. Mobile phone stolen from the complainant was recovered

from him and the same had been identified by the latter. Investigation now

stands completed and the challan has been presented against the petitioner

and the co-accused.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has

been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of

the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence.

The redmi mobile phone, which has been recovered from him had been

purchased by him from one Manjit Kumar and was not a stolen property as

alleged. The mobile phones of the complainant and others had already been

recovered at the instance of accused Chaman. There is no invoice regarding

purchase of mobile phone by the complainant. He did not even mention the

IMEI number of his mobile phone and only SIM card number and make of

mobile was mentioned in the complaint. No purpose is going to be served by

subjecting him to trial and it would amount to abuse of process of law. There

is no legally admissible evidence to connect him with the crime and there is

2 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -3-

no prospects of his being convicted. It is, hence, urged that the impugned

FIR is not sustainable qua him and is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for U.T., Chandigarh has addressed

arguments in support of his pleas as taken in the reply by submitting that the

mobile phone belonging to the complainant had been recovered from the

petitioner. The investigation has concluded. Charges are also going to be

framed. The allegations levelled in the FIR, coupled with the proceedings

conducted during the course of investigation make out a prima facie case for

commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. The powers for

quashing of FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS are to be exercised in

extraordinary and exceptional circumstances and no such circumstance has

been made out in this case. It is, thus, stressed that the petition does not

deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties.

7. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and

ambit of the Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia

with Section 528 of BNSS) as spelt out in several judicial pronouncements of

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. The well settled

proposition of law is that in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the High Court is not expected to analyze all the facts, which are to

be placed before the High Court. The power conferred under this section is

very specific. To secure the ends of justice, to prevent the abuse of process

of Court or to make any such orders as may be necessary to give effect to

any order under the Code, such power can be exercised to prevent abuse of

3 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -4-

process of Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn up some guidelines

in some categories of cases by way of illustration to circumscribe the

exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of

process of any Court or to secure the ends of the justice or to give effect to

an order of the Court. A celebrated pronouncement on this point is the case

cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal : 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335,

wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed different categories of cases

wherein the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to

prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and

to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should

be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-

"102 (1) 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 accused;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation 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;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

4 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -5-

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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;

(6) 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 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;

(7) 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. The principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) have been followed in a catena of judgments.

In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, it was

observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that although the inherent powers of a

High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and

only for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any Court or

otherwise to secure ends of justice, yet, the High Court must not hesitate in

quashing such criminal proceedings, where essential ingredients of the

offence are not made out. In Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka, (2022)

5 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -6-

2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint, as they

stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish

the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot

test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in the

manner that a judge conducting a trial would, based on the evidence

collected during the course of the trial. In Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of

Jharkhand, 2024 SCC Online SC 685, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial or enter into appreciation of evidence of

a particular case. The following observations were made:

"13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in

catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda1 held to the following effect:

"28. Having gone through the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears

6 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -7-

that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

9. Similar view was taken in Minakshi Yadav vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online 643, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the

reliability and genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR

or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

10. Reference can further be made to Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power

given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of

the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation

but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such

power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court.

11. In Neeharika Infrastructure vs. State of Maharashtra : 2021

7 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -8-

SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court observed that the Courts ought to be

cautious in exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. They do have

power to quash. The test is whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose

the commission of a cognizable offence? The merits of the allegations are

not to be entered into nor the power of the investigating agency to

investigate into allegations involving the commission of a cognizable

offence is to be trenched upon.

12. Similar position of law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ajay Malik vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185,

wherein it was observed as follows:

"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising

its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.

9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR

8 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -9-

represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."

13. It is also well settled that if charges are framed in accordance

with Section 263 of BNSS on finding that a prima facie case stands made

out, the persons arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional

jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the

charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC and documents sent with it

did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence

for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the

charges framed against him. It would not be justified for the High Court to

invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the same

except in rare cases. In this context, reference can also be made to In

Minakshi Bala vs. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri)

1181, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the

Competent Court has framed the charges, the person aggrieved may invoke

the revisional jurisdiction and the High Court should not exercise its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., except in the rare cases.

Reliance can also be placed upon Naresh Kumar and others vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others, 2023 STPL 2994 HP, where in FIR was

sought to be quashed but the order framing charge and other orders passed

by the trial Court taking cognizance were not challenged. It was observed by

the High Court of Himachal Pradesh that in the absence of any specific

challenge to the investigation conducted by the police and orders passed by

9 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -10-

the Court of competent jurisdiction, whereby the cognizance was taken and

thereafter the charges were framed, the FIR in question should not be

quashed. It was also noticed that most of the prosecution witnesses had

already been examined. The prayer made by the accused to quash the FIR

was declined.

14. On applying the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in aforecited judgments to the peculiar facts of this case, it

may be stated that at the time of filing of this petition, challan had been

presented and even charges have been framed and the matter was listed for

recording statements of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has not

specifically challenged the charges as framed against him nor the orders

taking cognizance of the offences have been challenged. As such, this Court

need not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to hold enquiry

into the factual aspects of the case, or to embark upon the question whether

the evidence in question is reliable or not since that is the function of the

trial Judge. Even otherwise, on going through the contents of the FIR, it is

revealed that the allegations clearly disclose a prima facie case against the

petitioner, which justify the registration of criminal proceedings against him.

It cannot be said that these allegations are bereft of even the basic facts,

which are absolutely necessary for constituting a prima facie case for the

offences alleged nor can it be said that the allegations made in the complaint,

even if taken at face value to be true in entirety, do not disclose any offence.

Rather, on appreciation of material on record on the touchstone of above

said legal position, this Court finds that there are specific allegations in the

FIR as against the present petitioner. In such circumstances, the instant case

10 of 11

CRM-M-22452-2025 (O&M) -11-

certainly does not fall within any of the categories of the cases calling for the

exercise of power by this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. It appears that

by seeking to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings, the petitioner

intends to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Specific allegations have been

raised in the FIR regarding forging documents/agreements and cheating the

complainant. The allegations levelled in the FIR do not advance the case of

the petitioner at this stage to seek quashing of the FIR. Disputed question of

facts cannot be delved into by this Court at this stage to exercise jurisdiction

under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in question.

15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court finds no ground whatsoever to interfere at this stage for quashing of

the FIR in question. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

16. It is, however, clarified that no observations made herein above

are the reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

The same are confined for the decision of the present petition only.

                                                       (MANISHA BATRA)
19.12.2025                                                 JUDGE
harjeet


          Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
          Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                           11 of 11