IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Darshan Singh & Ors. State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’ petitioners Sadar Budhlada, are facing a prosecution Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code 2. ‘Satnam S No.2’ only 06.11.2022, his tractor. Grain Market CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Darshan Singh & Ors. VERSUS Punjab& Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab. Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition under Section Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’ petitioners for quashing of FIR No.84 dated Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa. Vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioners are facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Satnam Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘ ’ only. It was stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that 06.11.2022, at about 06:00-07:00 pm, he was going home from his field on his tractor. According to complainant/respondent Grain Market, ‘Gurpiar Singh’ and ‘Arshdeep Singh’ 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 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioners. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab. Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ***** under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’ only, has been filed by the 84 dated 07.11.2022, Police Station . Vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant/respondent It was stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that he was going home from his field on According to complainant/respondent No.2, on the way near and ‘Arshdeep Singh’ met him, they Petitioners ..... Respondents 482 of the Criminal Procedure has been filed by the , Police Station . Vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of complainant/respondent It was stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that on he was going home from his field on , on the way near met him, they GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document intercepted his tractor and through their land. As per picked-up a brick complainant/respondent No.2, whereas ‘Gurpiar Singh’ 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 3. the above Singh’, ‘Kuldeep Singh’, ‘Hardeep Singh’ Singh’, who supported ‘Arshdeep Singh’. further alleged that in the meantime, ‘Labh Kaur’ 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 4. abovementioned investigation taken up. investigation, ‘Avtar Singh’ and ‘Gurm they have not been 5. 6. instant case is the CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) intercepted his tractor and exhorted to teach a lesson for seeking passage through their land. As per complainant/respondent No.2 up a brick-bat and hit the same on complainant/respondent No.2, whereas ‘Gurpiar Singh’ 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. It was further stated by the the above-named two assailants were joined by ‘Darshan Singh’, ‘Jagsir Singh’, ‘Kuldeep Singh’, ‘Hardeep Singh’ , who supported ‘Arshdeep Singh’. further alleged that in the meantime, ‘Labh Kaur’ complainant/respondent No.2, arrived on the spot, and when she was trying handover dinner to the complainant/respondent No.2, she was pushed on the ground by ‘Avtar Singh’, as a result of which her tooth 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, investigation, two accused named by complainant/respondent No.2, ‘Avtar Singh’ and ‘Gurmit Singh’ were found to be innocent and therefore, have not been prosecuted. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners instant case is the live example of misuse of process of law 2 to teach a lesson for seeking passage complainant/respondent No.2, ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and hit the same on the chest 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 It was further stated by the complainant/respondent No.2 that amed two assailants were joined by ‘Darshan Singh’, ‘Jagsir Singh’, ‘Kuldeep Singh’, ‘Hardeep Singh’, ‘Gurdeep Singh’ and ‘Avtar , who supported ‘Arshdeep Singh’. The complainant/respondent No.2 further alleged that in the meantime, ‘Labh Kaur’, grandmother of the complainant/respondent No.2, arrived on the spot, and when she was trying handover dinner to the complainant/respondent No.2, she was pushed on as a result of which her tooth broke. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the According to prosecution, during the course of two accused named by complainant/respondent No.2, namely were found to be innocent and therefore, It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that live example of misuse of process of law by using the law to teach a lesson for seeking passage shdeep Singh’ st of 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 complainant/respondent No.2 that amed two assailants were joined by ‘Darshan Singh’, ‘Jagsir , ‘Gurdeep Singh’ and ‘Avtar The complainant/respondent No.2 dmother of the complainant/respondent No.2, arrived on the spot, and when she was trying handover dinner to the complainant/respondent No.2, she was pushed on It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the during the course of namely were found to be innocent and therefore, that by using the law GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served foundation for the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 had levelled specific allegations against ‘Avtar Singh’, qua the Kaur’, which resulted into breaking of her tooth. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of investigation, has been found to be innocent, and thus, the very credibility of the allegations of complainant/respondent No.2 stands shattered. 7. that in the present case, the allegations against other co ‘Gurmit Singh’, have also been found to be false during the investigation, and he (Gurmit Singh) has not been chall While referring to the abovementioned events, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the abovementioned outcome of investigation makes it abund complainant/respondent No.2 was nothing, but a bundle of lies. 8. also contended that in the present case, otherwise also, the allegations contained in the has been alleged to have been is no allegation against the petitioner that except supporting the main accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurp CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 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 petitioners, the falsity of the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served foundation for the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 had levelled specific allegations against ‘Avtar Singh’, qua the Kaur’, which resulted into breaking of her tooth. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of investigation, has been found to be innocent, and thus, the very credibility of the tions of complainant/respondent No.2 stands shattered. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in the present case, the allegations against other co ‘Gurmit Singh’, have also been found to be false during the investigation, and he (Gurmit Singh) has not been chall 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 clear that the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 was nothing, but a bundle of lies. 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 is no allegation against the petitioner that except supporting the main accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurp 3 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 of the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served 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 tions of complainant/respondent No.2 stands shattered. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in the present case, the allegations against other co-accused, namely ‘Gurmit Singh’, have also been found to be false during the course of investigation, and he (Gurmit Singh) has not been 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 antly clear that the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 was nothing, but a bundle of lies. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, otherwise also, the allegations FIR itself shows that firstly no grievous injury, whatsoever, inflicted by the petitioners and secondly, there is no allegation against the petitioner that except supporting the main accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, they played any 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 of the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 can be gauged from the fact that in his statement, which served as foundation for the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 had levelled fact that he pushed ‘Labh Kaur’, which resulted into breaking of her tooth. As per learned counsel for abovesaid ‘Avtar Singh’ has been found to be innocent, and thus, the very credibility of the The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended accused, namely course of by the police. While referring to the abovementioned events, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the abovementioned outcome of antly clear that the statement of In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, otherwise also, the allegations FIR itself shows that firstly no grievous injury, whatsoever, and secondly, there is no allegation against the petitioner that except supporting the main iar Singh’, they played any GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document role in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the simply being accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, inflicted injuries on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 does not amount the commission of 9. of ‘Indian Oil Corporation V/s NEPC India Limited & Ors.’ (2006) 6 SCC 736, ‘Madhavra 1988 SCC 426, ‘Rupan Deol Bajaj V/s Kanwar Pal Singh Gill’ 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, the this Court learned counsel for the pet abovementioned cases squarely cover the factual matrix of the and therefore, in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction question should be quashed qua the petitioners. 10. learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 Counsel that in the present case, the investigation has already been completed and after investigation along with their co had committed the offence under Section According to learned State Counsel, sinc CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) role in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the being present on the spot, doing nothing and supporting the main accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, injuries on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 does not the commission of any offence. While referring to the principles of law laid down in the case Indian Oil Corporation V/s NEPC India Limited & Ors.’ (2006) 6 SCC , ‘Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V/s Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre’ 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, ‘State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal’ , ‘Rupan Deol Bajaj V/s Kanwar Pal Singh Gill’ 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, the extraordinary this Court under Section 482 of CrPC, learned counsel for the petitioners, the principles abovementioned cases squarely cover the factual matrix of the and therefore, in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction question should be quashed qua the petitioners. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the investigation has already been leted and after investigation, it has been found that the petitioners along with their co-accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, had committed the offence under Section According to learned State Counsel, since the challan in this case has already 4 role in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioners present on the spot, doing nothing and supporting the main accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, who had already injuries on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 does not While referring to the principles of law laid down in the case Indian Oil Corporation V/s NEPC India Limited & Ors.’ (2006) 6 SCC o Jiwajirao Scindia V/s Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre’ State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal’ 1992 SCC (Cri) , ‘Rupan Deol Bajaj V/s Kanwar Pal Singh Gill’ 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to extraordinary jurisdiction, vested in should be invoked. According to 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, the FIR in question should be quashed qua the petitioners. abovementioned arguments have been controverted learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the . It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the investigation has already been , it has been found that the petitioners ‘Arshdeep Singh and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, had committed the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC e the challan in this case has already petitioners, present on the spot, doing nothing and supporting the main who had already injuries on the person of complainant/respondent No.2 does not While referring to the principles of law laid down in the cases Indian Oil Corporation V/s NEPC India Limited & Ors.’ (2006) 6 SCC o Jiwajirao Scindia V/s Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre’ 1992 SCC (Cri) , ‘Rupan Deol Bajaj V/s Kanwar Pal Singh Gill’ 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to , vested in According to laid down in the present case, , the FIR in by learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the . It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the investigation has already been , it has been found that the petitioners ‘Arshdeep Singh and ‘Gurpiar Singh’, s 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC. e the challan in this case has already GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been filed and the consideration on the point of framing of charge take place whom sufficient evidence has been collected by the Investiga shall amount to miscarriage of justice. 11. No.2, the Investigating Agency has acted in a totally impartial manner that is why two of the accused, who were named in the FIR prosecuted by the for the complainant/respondent No.2 mini trial contents of the petition, against the petitioner are false. 12. once on the basis of allegations contained in the Section 173 CrPC the claim of the complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be adjudged quashing petition. In support of his arguments complainant/r by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others OnlineSC 315 Karnataka State of U.P. & Anr. Khan (Sataniya) 13. CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) been filed and the consideration on the point of framing of charge take place, at this stage, the quashing of FIR against the petitioners, against whom sufficient evidence has been collected by the Investiga amount to miscarriage of justice. According to learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2, the Investigating Agency has acted in a totally impartial manner that is why two of the accused, who were named in the FIR 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, mini trial should not be conducted by this contents of the petition, it cannot be observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false. As per learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 once on the basis of allegations contained in the Section 173 CrPC the abovementioned offence the claim of the complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be adjudged quashing petition. In support of his arguments complainant/respondent No.2 has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others SC 315, ‘Bhajan Lal’ (supra), ‘Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Karnataka’, Criminal Appeal No.4728 of 2025 State of U.P. & Anr.’ 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 175 Khan (Sataniya)’ Criminal Appeal No.4752 of 2025 The record has been perused carefully. 5 been filed and the consideration on the point of framing of charge is yet to , at this stage, the quashing of FIR against the petitioners, against whom sufficient evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency, According to learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2, the Investigating Agency has acted in a totally impartial manner, and that is why two of the accused, who were named in the FIR, have not been been contended by learned counsel that in a petition for quashing of FIR, this Court and, merely, on the basis of it cannot be observed that the allegations levelled As per learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 once on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, vis-à-vis report under 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, the learned counsel for the espondent No.2 has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others’2021 SCC Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of , Criminal Appeal No.4728 of 2025, ‘M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 175, and ‘Muskan Vs. Ishaan Criminal Appeal No.4752 of 2025. The record has been perused carefully. is yet to , at this stage, the quashing of FIR against the petitioners, against ting Agency, According to learned counsel for the complainant/respondent , and ve not been been contended by learned counsel that in a petition for quashing of FIR, a on the basis of it cannot be observed that the allegations levelled As per learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 vis report under , the veracity of in the the learned counsel for the espondent No.2 has referred to the principles of law laid down Neeharika 2021 SCC Vs. State of M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The Muskan Vs. Ishaan GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. very beginning, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioners abovementioned unlawful assembly was res the person of basis of contents of offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out, at this stage, when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence, the veracity allegations contained in the final report cannot be adjudged. can be taken only on completion of trial, when the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, vis 15. the present case 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 p collected by the Investigating Officer, such privilege is not available to this Court. 16. exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR can be exercised, laid down by Infrastructure CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 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 the person of complainant/respondent No.2 basis of contents of the FIR, vis-à-vis report under Section 173 CrPC, the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out, at this e, when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence, the veracity allegations contained in the final report cannot be adjudged. can be taken only on completion of trial, when the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, vis-à-vis the defence, 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 While giving an opportunity on the point of framing of charge, the learned trial Court shall be having the p collected by the Investigating Officer, such privilege is not available to this With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, raordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR can be exercised, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Infrastructure (supra). Those guidelines prescribe that “a) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in 6 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 that they had formed an unlawful assembly and the abovementioned unlawful assembly was responsible for causing injury on complainant/respondent No.2 and ‘Labh Kaur’. Once on the vis report under Section 173 CrPC, the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out, at this 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 is available on record. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that in 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 While giving an opportunity on the point of framing of charge, the learned trial Court shall be having the privilege to look into the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, such privilege is not available to this With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the guiding principles, wherein raordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR can be exercised, have been the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Neeharika prescribe that: ) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in 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 that they had formed an unlawful assembly and the ponsible for causing injury on . Once on the vis report under Section 173 CrPC, the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out, at this of the Such decision can be taken only on completion of trial, when the entire evidence adduced In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that in 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 While giving an opportunity on the point of framing of charge, the rivilege to look into the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, such privilege is not available to this With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for the guiding principles, wherein been Neeharika ) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (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 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 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 7 Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable 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; ) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with n, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the ty or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather 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; The functions of the judiciary and the police are ary, not overlapping; 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 Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the ) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with n, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the ty or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather 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 The functions of the judiciary and the police are interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) reported. Therefore, when the 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 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 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 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 imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid 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 h 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 exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under 8 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 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 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; When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under 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 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 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 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 appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard restraint down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under 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 as to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High ng petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r) CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 9 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 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 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 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 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. 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 be said to be too vague and/or broad 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 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 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 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 hing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of 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 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 be said to be too vague and/or broad GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on the question of quashing in the following circumstances: a) b) c) d) e) f) CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” In addition to above, in the case of 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 c 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 cognizable offence but constitute only a non 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 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 10 which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” in the case of ‘Ch. Bhajan Lal’ (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on of FIR has laid down that the FIR can be quashed 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. 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 s under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same se the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 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. 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 (supra),the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on of FIR has laid down that the FIR can be quashed Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and onstitute any 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 s under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same se the commission of any offence and make out Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no there is 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document g) 18. 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 investiga offences. 19. Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. As per 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. India held t 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 e or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 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 instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly in the case of ‘Sadiq B. Hanchinmani 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. In the case of ‘Balaji Traders Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. As per 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 In the case of ‘Muskan’ (supra) India held that the Court should not conduct a mini 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 e or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 11 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 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 Sadiq B. 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 tion when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable Balaji 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 ’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of hat 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. 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 Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with 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 , 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 tion when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be 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 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 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 nquiry as to the reliability GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. of the principles of law laid down in the abovementioned cases, it transpires that at this stage, allegations contained in the FIR, vis the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to dra 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 22. that there is no merit in the present The present petition is hereby the fact that 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 f or any other subsequent stage, opinion on the basis of material 23. disposed of, 28.04.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-22673-2024 (O&M) 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 report under Section 173 CrPC the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. On the basis of plea take facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to dra inference that the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition fails to meet the requisite parameters prescribed for quashing of FIR in question. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that there is no merit in the present petition he present petition is hereby dismissed, 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 f or any other subsequent stage, shall be at liberty to form its independent opinion on the basis of material produced Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 12 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 it is not possible to draw an inference that on the basis of vis report under Section 173 CrPC the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out On the basis of plea taken by the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to draw inference that the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition fails to meet the prescribed for quashing of FIR in question. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held petition and the same deserves dismissal. accordingly. However, in view of 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 framing of charge shall be at liberty to form its independent produced by the Investigating Agency. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No 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 it is not possible to draw an inference that on the basis of vis report under Section 173 CrPC, the offence under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC is made out n by the petitioners and the an inference that the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition fails to meet the As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held and the same deserves dismissal. However, in view of 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 raming of charge shall be at liberty to form its independent Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document