[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 December, 2025
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
__
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M)
Arun Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 11.11.2025
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.12.2025
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 22.12.2025
the website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment
is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Ms. Preeti Manderna, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate and
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for quashing of FIR
No. 109 dated 28.05.2025, registered under Sections 115, 126, 140(3) and
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station
Sector 20, Panchkula along with all the subsequent proceedings having
emanated therefrom.
1 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
complaint lodged by complainant/respondent No. 2 Meghna Rana alleging
therein that her marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner on
25.11.2015. A male child, namely Atharva, was born on 14.02.2018 out of
the said wedlock. They were residing in USA. She was subjected to repeated
physical, mental and emotional abuse at the hands of the petitioner. She left
his company and came to India with the child in the year 2022. The
petitioner obtained an ex-parte divorce from a Court at Florida. The
petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a habeas corpus petition
bearing CRWP-8059-2024 seeking release of the child in his favour but the
same was dismissed by this Court. On 28.05.2025, the petitioner,
accompanied by 2-3 persons, came outside the house of the complainant and
forcibly grabbed the child from the hands of the complainant's father and
abducted him. He also attacked her father and sprayed some chemical in his
eyes, causing severe pain and temporary loss of vision. He also extended
severe beatings to him. The entire incident took place in front of the minor
child, who got traumatized. The petitioner, while leaving with the child, also
extended threats to kill the complainant and her father, if they would try to
take any legal action against him. She expressed her apprehension that the
petitioner would take minor child to USA and subject him to harm,
psychological trauma or immoral influences. The complainant, thus, prayed
for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation
proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was granted concession of bail.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of
2 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -3-
the impugned FIR. Vide order dated 30.07.2025, further proceedings in the
impugned FIR were stayed by this Court.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned FIR has been registered purely as an abuse of the process of law
and is a direct outcome of strained matrimonial relations between the parties.
The respondent No. 2/complainant and the petitioner have been litigating on
issues relating to marriage and custody of the minor child and the criminal
machinery has been invoked with a view to settle personal scores and to
pressurize the petitioner. The complainant admittedly left the matrimonial
home in the year 2022 and came to India along with the minor child without
the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner, being the biological father, has
consistently asserted his parental rights and sought lawful custody of the
child through appropriate legal remedies. The lodging of the present FIR is
nothing but a counterblast to the petitioner's efforts to secure custody of his
son. The petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child and his act of
taking custody of his own son cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, constitute an offence of kidnapping or abduction. It is a settled position
of law that custody of a minor by one natural guardian does not amount to
kidnapping from another natural guardian, particularly in the absence of any
subsisting order of a competent court restraining such custody. The
allegations levelled in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, essentially
relate to a dispute over custody and visitation rights, which fall squarely
within the domain of civil and family law. Such disputes cannot be given a
criminal colour so as to subject the petitioner to prosecution for serious
penal offences.
3 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -4-
4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he
petitioner had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by way of a habeas
corpus petition seeking custody of the minor child, which was dismissed.
The dismissal of the said petition does not amount to a declaration of
illegality against the petitioner nor does it extinguish his status as a natural
guardian. The present FIR seeks to criminalize the assertion of lawful
parental rights, which is impermissible in law. The allegations regarding
assault, use of chemical substance and criminal intimidation are vague,
omnibus and inherently improbable. No independent witness has been cited
and the medical evidence, if any, does not corroborate the exaggerated
version put forth in the FIR. Such allegations have been introduced only to
give a serious criminal complexion to what is otherwise a private family
dispute. The proceedings in the impugned FIR, if allowed to continue, would
result in grave miscarriage of justice and would amount to harassment of the
petitioner by subjecting him to a protracted criminal trial on the basis of
motivated and malafide allegations. The inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court is, therefore, required to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process
of law and to secure the ends of justice. It is, thus, urged that the petition
deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR FIR and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. To fortify her
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities
cited as Maunish Dindar Shaw and another vs. State of Gujarat and
another, 2023 SCC Online Guj 743, Shri Ashish vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2023 NCPHC-NAG 15914 and Mohd. Jeelani vs. The State of
Telangana and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 2066945.
4 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -5-
5. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State
counsel has argued that there are specific allegations against the petitioners.
The allegations levelled against the petitioners prima facie make out a case
under the alleged offences. The veracity of the allegations as levelled against
the petitioners can be tested in the trial which has to take place before
learned trial Court and no ground for quashing the FIR has been made out.
6. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 2/complainant has also been
filed. In terms of the same, learned counsel for respondent No.
2/complainant has argued that the petitioner has not only kidnapped the
minor child in defiance of the order passed by this Court but has also caused
injuries to her father. He had sprayed some chemical in the eyes of her father
and had extended threat to kill them, if they would take any legal action
against him. The petitioner was not alone but was accompanied by 2-3
persons at the time of incident. The entire incident was captured in a CCTV
camera, footage of which has been obtained by the police. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 1918 has held that the police has the
statutory right and duty to investigate into a cognizable offence and the
Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences and
the criminal proceedings ought not be scuttled at initial stage. Hence, it is
urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
8. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and
ambit of the Court's power under Section 528 of BNSS (which is pari
5 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -6-
materia with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) 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 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 securethe 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 has
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
6 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -7-
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) 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."
7 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -8-
9. 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 Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2021) 14 SCC 626, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment.
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 plentitude 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. Reference can further be made to Narinder Singh and
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put him into great
8 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -9-
oppression and prejudice and injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing criminal case.
11. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra :
2019 (18) SCC 191, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the
parameters as laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), had observed that for
quashing of the proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate was not called for. Appreciation
of evidence was also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the
allegations set out in the complaint did not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of its inherent powers.
12. In Neeharika's case (supra), 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.
13. Now adverting to the present case. The petitioner has been
booked for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115, 126,
140(3) and 3(5) of BNS on the allegations that on 28.05.2025, he along with
his 2-3 accomplices, had kidnapped the minor child, born out of his wedlock
with the complainant, and in that process, he had caused injuries to the father
of the complainant and had also sprayed some chemical substance into his
eyes. While leaving the place of occurrence, he had extended threat to kill
9 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -10-
the complainant and her family members, if they would take any action
against him. These allegations levelled in the impugned FIR cannot be
brushed aside at this stage as being wholly malafide or purely civil in nature.
It is true that the petitioner is the biological father of the minor child and
being a natural guardian, a debatable issue may arise as to whether the
offence under Section 140(3) of BNS (relating to kidnapping or abduction)
is strictly made out against him or not? However, this aspect by itself cannot
be determinative of the present petition. Even if, for the sake of argument,
the applicability of Section 140(3) of BNS is kept open for consideration at a
later stage, the allegations made in the FIR disclose specific and independent
allegations against the petitioner which prima facie attract the provisions of
Sections 115 and 126 of BNS. The complainant has categorically alleged
that while taking away the minor child, the petitioner assaulted her father,
sprayed some chemical substance into his eyes causing severe pain and
temporary loss of vision and extended criminal intimidation by threatening
to kill the complainant and her father if they pursued legal remedies.
Significantly, the allegations are not confined to the petitioner alone. It is
specifically stated that the petitioner was accompanied by 2-3 other persons,
who aided him in forcibly taking away the child and in assaulting the
complainant's father. The presence of accomplices, as alleged, prima facie
rules out the argument that the incident was a mere assertion of parental
rights and lends weight to the prosecution version that force and intimidation
were used in the commission of the alleged acts. The allegations regarding
causing hurt and criminal intimidation are supported by the assertion of
injuries to the complainant's father and the claim that the entire incident was
10 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -11-
captured on CCTV footage, which has been taken into possession by the
investigating agency. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon an
appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of
these allegations, which is a matter to be tested during trial.
14. The contention of the petitioner that the FIR is a counterblast to
the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and that the dispute essentially
arises out of matrimonial discord and child custody issues, though not
entirely without substance, cannot eclipse the fact that distinct criminal
allegations have been levelled, which on the face of it, disclose the
commission of cognizable offences. Matrimonial or custody disputes cannot
be permitted to be resolved by use of force, assault or criminal intimidation.
15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the parameters
laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) for exercising inherent jurisdiction
to quash the FIR at the threshold. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
The interim order dated 30.07.2025 stands vacated.
16. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein
above are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same
shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
22.12.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
11 of 12
CRM-M-38294-2025 (O&M) -12-
Whether reportable Yes/No
12 of 12
