[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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-
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
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.
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
