The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash an FIR lodged against a man accused of impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check, holding that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences warranting a full-fledged trial. The Court underscored that disputed facts and competing versions cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition and cautioned that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold.
The case arose from an incident at a traffic intersection in Chandigarh where police officials stopped a vehicle for an apparent traffic violation. According to the prosecution, the driver refused to comply with lawful directions, declined to produce his driving licence, claimed to be a Judicial Magistrate to overawe the police, and subsequently fled the spot. It was later alleged that the vehicle did not belong to any judicial officer and that the driver had obstructed officials while discharging their public duties, leading to registration of the FIR and his arrest.
The petitioner contended that the FIR was a product of vendetta by the police, alleging that he had previously filed complaints against senior officials of the Chandigarh Administration. It was argued that the incident had been falsely portrayed, that the police officers were not in uniform, and that a legitimate objection raised by the petitioner was given the colour of obstruction. The petitioner further asserted that the prosecution amounted to abuse of process and invoked statutory bars under criminal law, besides claiming immunity on grounds of mental health issues arising after the incident.
Opposing the plea, the State maintained that the allegations were grave and clearly demonstrated impersonation of a judicial officer to gain undue advantage. The prosecution argued that the petitioner deliberately obstructed police officials and fled the scene, justifying the registration of the FIR. It was further contended that the statutory bar relied upon by the petitioner did not apply to all offences alleged and that the claim of mental incapacity was neither contemporaneous with the incident nor a valid ground for quashing proceedings at this stage.
After examining the record, the High Court held that the petitioner’s presence at the spot was undisputed and that the core issue, whether the prosecution version or the defence narrative was correct, could only be determined after appreciation of evidence at trial.
The Court reiterated that it cannot assess the truthfulness or reliability of allegations in a petition seeking quashing and observed, “Without proper appreciation of evidence to be adduced at trial, it is not possible to conclude which of the two versions is true.”
Relying on settled Apex Court precedents, the Court emphasised that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It further clarified that where multiple offences are alleged and are legally separable, proceedings cannot be invalidated at the threshold merely because one charge may attract a statutory bar, which can be examined at the stage of framing of charges. The Court also rejected the plea for immunity on mental health grounds, noting that such a claim must relate to the time of the alleged offence and can be raised before the trial court, if permissible.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for interference was made out and that the investigation and prosecution must proceed in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Case Title: Parkash Singh Marwah Vs. State of UT Chandigarh and others
Case No.: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Surya Partap Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Hardial Singh Baath
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Ganesh Sharma (Addl. P.P)
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
