CRM-M-36875 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 126 Jagjeet Singh and others State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) under Section 2. Gurcharan Singh, who submitted that he moved an application for demarcation o revenue estate of Jaito, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot and requested for police assistance 03.11.2019, revenue Patwari of Halqa Jaito Tehsildar, Jaito, reached the spot to carry out police Station proceedings were conducted peacefully. demarcation, Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, their family members along with Sardul Singh resident of Kasam Bhatti unknown persons arrived at the spot, started a quarrel and created a ruckus. 36875-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagjeet Singh and others VERSUS Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab **** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. under Sections 353, 186 of IPC, Police Station Jaiton, District Faridkot. Case was registered on complaint of Gurcharan Singh, who submitted that he moved an application for demarcation of Khasra No.1664, a non cultivable pathway, situated in the revenue estate of Jaito, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot and requested for assistance which was provided to carry out the demarcation , revenue Patwari of Halqa Jaito Tehsildar, Jaito, reached the spot to carry out police Station, Jaito had also arrived with them to ensure that demarcation proceedings were conducted peacefully. When the said official demarcation, Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, their family members along with Sardul Singh resident of Kasam Bhatti unknown persons arrived at the spot, started a quarrel and created a ruckus. M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36875-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:10.07.2026 …Petitioners ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab. quashing of FIR No.0102 dated 24.07.2020, 353, 186 of IPC, Police Station Jaiton, District Faridkot. Case was registered on complaint of Gurpash Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, who submitted that he moved an application for , a non cultivable pathway, situated in the revenue estate of Jaito, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot and requested for to carry out the demarcation. On , revenue Patwari of Halqa Jaito-2, Halqa Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar, Jaito, reached the spot to carry out the demarcation. Police from also arrived with them to ensure that demarcation When the said officials started the demarcation, Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, their family members along with Sardul Singh resident of Kasam Bhatti and 25-30 unknown persons arrived at the spot, started a quarrel and created a ruckus. (O&M) .2026 s espondents , Gurpash Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, who submitted that he moved an application for , a non cultivable pathway, situated in the revenue estate of Jaito, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot and requested for n Kanungo and Naib the demarcation. Police from also arrived with them to ensure that demarcation started the demarcation, Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, their family 30 unknown persons arrived at the spot, started a quarrel and created a ruckus. KAPIL 2026.07.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36875 They stopped the offic abusive language and made obstruction in demarcation proceedings saying that they would not let demarcation happen if the demarcation was carried out. 3. falsely lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, despite the fact that demarcation of Khasra No. civil and criminal proceedings. Petiti criminal case vide judgment Thereafter, the civil suit filed by the petitioner favour vide judgment and decree dated fresh demarcation proceedings, withholding and concealing the earlier litigation and result of earlier litigation. the police official and fabricated ver which was an abuse of process of the Court be quashed. 4. proceedings charge-sheet exercising inherent expected to preliminary stage. a mini trial which 482 Cr.P.C. powers under 36875-2026 (O&M) They stopped the officials who were conduct language and made obstruction in demarcation proceedings saying uld not let demarcation happen and also extended threats to kill if the demarcation was carried out. Legal action was praye Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that falsely lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, despite the fact that demarcation of Khasra No.1664 had already been subject matter of earlier civil and criminal proceedings. Petitioner No.1 was acquitted in the earlier criminal case vide judgment dated 17.07.2024 which had attained finality. Thereafter, the civil suit filed by the petitioner favour vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2024. Respondent No.2 fresh demarcation proceedings, withholding and concealing the earlier litigation and result of earlier litigation. Neither the revenue authorities nor the police officials lodged any complaint and prosecution was based on false and fabricated version of respondent No.2. He, thus, submits that the FIR which was an abuse of process of the Court be quashed. Exercise of power under Section is warranted only when the allegations do not disclose the ingredients inherent powers under Section weigh evidence or assess the stage. Engaging in such an exercise which is not permissible. Quashing is an exception rather than the under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised M) 2 ials who were conducting the demarcation used language and made obstruction in demarcation proceedings saying and also extended threats to kill Legal action was prayed for. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was falsely lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, despite the fact that 1664 had already been subject matter of earlier oner No.1 was acquitted in the earlier dated 17.07.2024 which had attained finality. Thereafter, the civil suit filed by the petitioners was also decreed in their 18.10.2024. Respondent No.2 sought fresh demarcation proceedings, withholding and concealing the earlier Neither the revenue authorities nor any complaint and prosecution was based on false sion of respondent No.2. He, thus, submits that the FIR, which was an abuse of process of the Court be quashed. Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal allegations made in the FIR or the of the offence(s) alleged. While 482 Cr.P.C., this court is not the veracity of allegations at exercise would amount to conducting Quashing of FIR, by invoking Section the ordinary rule and the inherent exercised with much caution and used language and made obstruction in demarcation proceedings saying and also extended threats to kill FIR was falsely lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, despite the fact that 1664 had already been subject matter of earlier oner No.1 was acquitted in the earlier dated 17.07.2024 which had attained finality. was also decreed in their sought fresh demarcation proceedings, withholding and concealing the earlier Neither the revenue authorities nor any complaint and prosecution was based on false , criminal the While not at conducting Section inherent and KAPIL 2026.07.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36875 circumspection. the Court can 5. of Khasra N.1664 06.12.2018, titled ‘Jagjit Singh and another vs. Gurpash Singh’ aid of the petitioner since the FIR pertains to assault their duty as public servant discharging his duties. The correctness of the allegations in the be examined in the case when contents thereof commission of cognizable offences. On the basis of the judgments placed on record, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are attended with 6. v. State (Govt. “It is a quashing conducting evidence. exercised 36875-2026 (O&M) circumspection. There are 3 circumstances under can be exercised. i. To give effect to an order under ii. To prevent abuse of the process iii. Otherwise secure ends of justice. The culmination of the prior litigation relating to demarcation of Khasra N.1664, judgment of acquittal in case vide FIR No Annexure P-2, the judgment in civil suit No. titled ‘Jagjit Singh and another vs. Gurpash Singh’ aid of the petitioner since the FIR, lodged under Sections 353, 186 of IPC assault/criminal force to a public servant duty as public servants with the intent to prevent or deter discharging his duties. The correctness of the allegations in the be examined in the case when contents thereof commission of cognizable offences. On the basis of the judgments placed on record, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings against the are attended with mala fide and are liable to be quashed. Following observations of Hon’ble (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, 2003 SCC(Cri)2016 a firmly established principle that, quashing under Section 482 of the Crpc conducting a mini-trial or undertaking evidence. The inherent power to quash exercised only in rare and exceptional M) 3 under which inherent powers of under the Court. process of Court. justice. prior litigation relating to demarcation in case vide FIR No. 171 dated t in civil suit No.CIS/186/2019 titled ‘Jagjit Singh and another vs. Gurpash Singh’ cannot be brought to the under Sections 353, 186 of IPC /criminal force to a public servants in the execution of with the intent to prevent or deter them from discharging his duties. The correctness of the allegations in the FIR cannot be examined in the case when contents thereof prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. On the basis of the judgments placed on record, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings against the and are liable to be quashed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal SCC(Cri)2016, would be relevant:- that, while examining a petition for Crpc, the court must refrain from undertaking a detailed evaluation of the quash criminal proceedings is to be exceptional circumstances, such as where of prior litigation relating to demarcation . 171 dated CIS/186/2019 cannot be brought to the under Sections 353, 186 of IPC of from cannot disclose commission of cognizable offences. On the basis of the judgments placed on record, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings against the Lal for from the be where KAPIL 2026.07.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36875 the allegations or fail on its face, appropriate continue, interlocutory the investigative justice.” 7. The case down by Hon’ble Supreme Bhajan Lal and Others, The petition is, therefore 8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 10.07.2026 Kapil 36875-2026 (O&M) allegations in the FIR are patently to disclose any cognizable offence. face, discloses the basic ingredients appropriate course is to allow the process continue, rather than prematurely terminating interlocutory stage. Interference at this investigative process but also defeat justice.” case of the petitioner does not Supreme Court in State of Haryana Others, 1992 AIR 604 and it is not therefore, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable : M) 4 patently absurd, inherently improbable, offence. When the FIR or complaint, ingredients of a cognizable offence, the process of investigation and trial to terminating the prosecution at an this stage would not only impede defeat the very object of criminal fall within the parameters laid Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary not a fit case for quashing the FIR. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No improbable, complaint, the to an impede criminal laid Chaudhary FIR. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) KAPIL 2026.07.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document