[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Sharma & Another vs State Of Punjab & Another on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
177 CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 11.03.2026
Ramesh Sharma & Anr.
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Anr.
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. The instant petition is a petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This petition has
been filed for quashing of FIR No.22 dated 16.06.2025, under Section
316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, [challan filed for the offence
under Sections 316(2) and 238 of BNS], Police Station Women, District
Patiala. All the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, too, have been
sought to be quashed.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of 'Ritika Gohri', hereinafter being
referred to as 'complainant' only. It was alleged by the above-named
complainant that her marriage was solemnized on 24.11.2023 with 'Sidharth
Sharma', presently residing in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. According to
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
complainant, at the time of marriage, her parents had gifted dowry befitting
to their status and the dowry articles, i.e. gold and silver ornaments
comprised of diamond ring, gold bracelet, gold chain etc. As per
complainant, 'Sidharth Sharma' used to claim that being a citizen of USA,
the dowry must be befitting to his status, and that after marriage when the
complainant visited her matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment
by repeated comments regarding inadequate dowry.
3. It has also been claimed by the complainant that in addition to
mental agony being faced by her in her matrimonial home, she was
subjected to physical harassment also by her husband, and that but she
tolerated the same and accompanied 'Sidharth Sharma' to USA, where the
same ill treatment continued. It has further been claimed by the complainant
that due to unwanted behaviour of her husband 'Sidharth Sharma', she left
him, and came back to India. As per complainant with the intervention of her
parents and others, she had agreed to stay with her parental in-laws.
4. The complainant had further alleged that after few days, when
'Sidharth Sharma' visited his parents' home, he resorted to physical and
mental harassment of the complainant and when the abovementioned
incident was narrated by the complainant to her parented in-laws, they
behaved indifferently. It had been further claimed of the complainant that
fed-up with the abovementioned treatment, being faced by her in her in-
laws' house, she demanded for the return of her belongings, but the
petitioners refused to return the same.
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
5. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken
up.
6. Notice of motion qua respondent No.1.
7. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the
State is hereby dispensed with.
8. Heard.
9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners are old-age senior citizens, and that the FIR has been lodged
on the basis of a false, frivolous and concocted allegations. As per learned
counsel for the petitioners, the complainant has cooked-up a false story
regarding her alleged harassment by the petitioners, vis-à-vis with regard to
misappropriation of dowry articles. The focus of the arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner has been upon the plea that the petitioners have
nothing to do with the sour relationship between the complainant and her
husband. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners
have not misappropriated any articles belonging to the complainant, and that
even after the filing of FIR, when Investigating Agency approached the
petitioners, they cooperated with the Investigating Agency and handed over
the dowry articles.
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
10. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
further contended that in fact the complainant herself had left the dowry
articles in her matrimonial home, and it was never misappropriated
temporarily or otherwise by the petitioners. While claiming that the
allegations against the petitioner are false, frivolous and without any basis,
the quashing of FIR in question has been sought.
11. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has contended that all the
grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition, for quashing of FIR,
can be determined on appreciation of evidence only. As per learned State
Counsel, since in the present case the statements of witnesses are yet to be
recorded by the learned trial Court, merely on the basis of counter-
allegations of the petitioners, this controversy cannot be determined, whether
allegations levelled against the petitioners are genuine or not.
12. The record has been perused carefully.
13. With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, 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. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others' 2021 SCC
OnlineSC 315. Those guidelines prescribe that:
"a) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
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, 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 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 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, not overlapping;
j) 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;
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
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 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;
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-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down
by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, 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
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
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;
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 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 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;
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, after considering the
broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
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.
14. In addition to above, in the case of 'State of Haryana Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal', 1991(1) RCR 383, 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
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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.
15. Similarly in the case of 'Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of
Karnataka', Criminal Appeal No.4728 of 2025, 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 when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable offences.
16. 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
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
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.
17. In the case of 'Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)', Criminal
Appeal No.4752 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held 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.
18. In the light of abovementioned guiding principles, if the facts
and circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that by
filing the present petition, the petitioners have taken the stand that the
allegations levelled against them are false and unnatural. With regard to
abovementioned grounds, taken by the petitioners, it is relevant to mention
here that the truth behind the allegations levelled by the complainant can be
unearthed only by appreciation of evidence to be led by the prosecution
during the course of trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of grounds taken
by the petitioners that they are innocent, this controversy cannot be
determined that any offence against them is made out. Thus, it is hereby held
that the present petition is squarely covered by the guiding principles laid
down in the cases, mentioned above.
CRM-M-13209-2026 (O&M)
19. As a sequel to abovementioned observation, it is hereby
observed that the petitioners have failed to establish any ground for quashing
of present FIR and therefore, it is hereby held that the present petition is
devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed,
accordingly.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
11.03.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
