Vandna Tyagi And Others vs Jatin Tyagi And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 728 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vandna Tyagi And Others vs Jatin Tyagi And Others on 29 January, 2026

CRM-M No.7636 of 2021 (O&M)                     1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M No.7636 of 2021 (O&M)
                                        Reserved on: 16.01.2026
                                        Pronounced on:29.01.2026

Vandna Tyagi and others
                                                     ......Petitioners
                                  Versus

Jatin Tyagi and others

                                                     ...... Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present :     Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

              Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 452,

500, 506, 509 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as IPC

only, the FIR No.551 dated 08.04.2017, has been lodged in Police Station City

Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Vide above mentioned FIR, the petitioners

are being prosecuted for the commission of above mentioned offence. They

are aggrieved of the same and therefore, they have resorting to present petition,

seeking for quashing of FIR.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that, that at the

instance of 'Nootan', hereinafter being referred to as complainant only, the FIR

was lodged. It was stated by the complainant that on 07.04.2017 on account of

religious function, i.e. 'Pooja of Swami Satya Narain Bhagwan and Havan'

followed by meal, there was gathering of her relatives and friends at her home.

According to complainant, at about 3.30 P.M. few persons including ladies

1 of 14

entered her house hurled abuses for the complainant and her daughter, and

misbehaved with them. It was also stated by the complainant that the utensils

and other articles, kept in the house for serving meal, were also thrown here

and there, and the abovesaid assailants manhandled them also. In the above

mentioned complaint, it was also stated by the complainant that one of the

member of above mentioned assailants group was 'Vandana' who was claiming

that her husband had solemnized second marriage. As per complainant,

Vandana was accompanied with her mother, sister, father and several other

persons. As per complainant the above mentioned assailants created nuisance

at her residence for approximately 45 minutes, and thus, committed the above

mentioned offence.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of above

mentioned information formal FIR of this case was lodged and the

investigation taken up.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the

ground that by twisting the facts wrong story has been projected by the

complainant and the same story has been followed in the FIR. According to

petitioners, in fact, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1 and the

petitioners No.2 to 4 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of

respondent No.1, respectively. It has been alleged by the petitioners that

marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.1 on

20.05.2009 and out of above said wed-lock a daughter was born on

23.08.2010. According to petitioners the respondent No.1 had subjected the

petitioner No.1 to cruelty on the pretext of dowry, and that in view of persistent

2 of 14

cruelty committed by the respondent No.1 she had lodged FIR against the

respondent No.1 in the year 2019 and even filed petition for maintenance

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, and also a complaint under Domestic Violence

Act.

5. As per petitioners, the respondent No.1 had developed extra

marital relations with the respondent No. 3 and that on 07.04.2017 the

petitioners came to know that the respondent No.1 was going to solemnize

marriage with the respondent No.3 and therefore, the petitioner No.1

approached police authority and requested them to prevent the respondent

No.1, from solemnizing the marriage during the subsistence of first marriage.

According to petitioners, on the instructions of senior police officer, the local

police officers along with petitioners had visited the house of complainant

where the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 were locked in a room by the

family members of respondent No.3. While claiming that the entire event was

recorded in a video camera, the petitioners have alleged that the respondent

No.1, who himself was indulging in illegal activity had slapped the FIRs

against the petitioners by twisting the fact, and that the victim of cruelty, i.e.

respondent No.1, is being forced to suffer additional miseries due to above

mentioned FIR. While claiming that the above mentioned FIR is nothing but

sheer misuse of process of law, the petitioners have sought for quashing of

FIR.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

instant case is a very strange case, wherein the victim of domestic violence,

3 of 14

cruelty on account of demand of dowry and also a sufferer of in-different

attitude of her husband, who had refused to maintain her, is being prosecuted

for the commission of act which took place in the presence of police officer

who had visited the spot to stop the respondent No.1 from committing an

illegal act, i.e. second marriage. It has also been contended by learned counsel

for the petitioners that despite the fact that police officials were present on the

spot and the entire incident was recorded in video camera, the video footage of

which is available, the FIR has been slapped against the petitioners and they

are being forced to face a trial for the commission of offence which, in fact,

does not amount to an offence at all. While heavily relying upon the contents

of video footage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no

offence against the petitioners is made out, and therefore, being an abuse of

process of law the present petition deserves to be allowed in the exercise of

extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court.

8. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the cases of 'State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal',

1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, 'R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab' AIR 1960 Supreme

Court 866 and 'Gian Singh VS. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 Supreme Court

Cases 303, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought for quashing of

present FIR.

9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned

arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that in the present

case the allegations against the petitioners are very specific qua the fact that

they had entered into the residential premises of the complainant, used abusive

4 of 14

language, and also assaulted and misbehaved with them. According to learned

State counsel once there are very specific and categorical allegations against

the petitioner, and prima face evidence has been collected by the Investigating

Agency during the course of investigation, the mere fact that the petitioner

No.1 has lodged FIR against the respondent No.1 does not absolve the

petitioners from the above mentioned criminal/illegal act. As per learned State

counsel in the present case the credibility of the allegations levelled by the

complainant cannot be adjudged at this stage, and that without appreciation of

evidence it cannot be adjudged as to whether the allegations contained in the

FIR are true or not. According to State counsel for such purpose the trial has to

conducted.

10. In support of his argument, the leaned State counsel has referred

to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of 'Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and

others' 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

11. The record has been perused carefully.

12. Before adverting to the merits of the case it is relevant to mention

here that the guiding principles, wherein extraordinary 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 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(supra). Those principles are:

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in

5 of 14

Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable

offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable

offences;

iii) 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;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with

circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare

cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of

death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is

sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial

stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than

an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts 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;

6 of 14

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are

complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result

in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process

should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer

an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its

whims or caprice;

xii) 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 complaint/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;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but

conferment of wide power requires the court to be more

7 of 14

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the

court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard

being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-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;

xv) 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 has to permit the investigating

agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) 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 quashing 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 order should not require to be passed routinely, casually

and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in

8 of 14

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 justified 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 quashing petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

xvii) 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, after 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.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no

9 of 14

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."

13. In addition to above, in the case of 'Bhajan Lal (supra), the

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:-

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 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 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

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.

d) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a

10 of 14

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.

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.

14. With regard to similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Gian Singh (supra) observed that in order to secure the

ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can

11 of 14

be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise

has been effected. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, the power of the High Court

in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint 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 of Criminal

Procedure. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but

it has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline engrafted in such power

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

any Court."

15. In the case of 'M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.'

2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 175, 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.

16. In the case of 'Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)' Criminal

Appeal No.4752 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India propounded that

the Court should not conduct a mini-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 enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of

allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

17. In the light of above mentioned settled principles of law if the

factual matrix of the instant case is analysed it transpires that in the present

12 of 14

case the complainant while reporting the incident to the police had come

forward with very categorical and specific allegations that when with regard to

a religious ceremony there was a gathering at the house of complainant the

petitioners forcibly entered into her house, and insulted her by using abusive

language and assaulted her.

18. Once there are very specific allegations against the petitioners

merely on the ground that some litigation between the petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No.1, with regard to matrimonial discord is going on, does not

permit the petitioners to forcibly entered into the house of a person without

permission, and assaulted them. For the sake of arguments, even if, the

contents of the petition are taken of their face value that the above mentioned

incident had been taken place in the presence of police officials, even then the

petitioners had no right to enter into the premises of complainant and assault

her. No doubt the veracity of allegations as contained in the complaint is yet to

be determined but at this stage when the prosecution evidence is yet to be led

and appreciated merely on the plea of the petitioner that they have been falsely

implicated, the prima facie evidence collected by the investigating agency

during the course of investigation cannot be brushed aside. Thus it is hereby

held that by any standard, prescribed under the law, it cannot be said that the

prosecution of petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

19. Taking into consideration the fact that any of the parameters

prescribed under the aforementioned precedents does not cover the case of the

petitioners, I hold that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves

dismissal. Hence the same is hereby dismissed.

13 of 14

20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 29.01.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

14 of 14