[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
