CRM-M-25897-2023 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (142) CRM-M-25897-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Dharambir Singh …... Petitioner(s) V/s State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arnav sood, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the FIR No. 403 dated 20.08.2016 under Sections 364, 364- A/120-B/149 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1), supplementary challan dated 01.08.2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Pardeep Singh Chandi and reads as under:- Statement of Pardeep Singh Chandi Slo Kuldeep Singh caste Kamboj R/o Sukhmani Farm Village Heir Ajnala Road, Amritsar aged around 42 years mobile No. 81467-16544 stated that I am a resident of abovesaid address and running a property business. Today I was coming in my Duster car bearing No. PB02-CC-0163 at Amritsar for the purpose of some work and after finishing my work, when time will be around 8:30 PM. I was going towards Ranjit Avenue from SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::2:: Rattan Singh Chowk, when I reached near Hotel HK 52, I saw the car of my brother bearing no PB02- BV-1000 parked there and ahead of that car one Innova bearing DL-IT- AV was also parked whose number plate was broken and the same was parked diagonally and there three persons encircled my brother and were trying put him into the Innova forcefully but I raised an alarm to save my brother but those three persons put my brother in Innova and the driver had already started the Innova car and he immediately drove away with the car Out of them one person drove away the car of my brother make Pajero Sports bearing No PB02BV1000 That my brother had come back from Canada and was dealing in the work of Computer Software I am fully confident that my brother has been kidnapped for ransom and it may happen that they can cause loss to him due to ransom I can identify them if they can come before me. The description of them are driver of the car was clean shaven and remaining three were Sikh gentlemen out of them ones beard was long. I tried my best to find him alongwith my relatives but he could not be traced I was coming for giving information legal action be taken statement has been heard and is correct. Sd/- Pardeep Singh Chandi attested Sd/- Nishan Singh SI police post In-charge Ranjit Avenue Amritsar dt 20.08.2016. 3. During the course of the investigation, the challan was submitted against Varun Sareen, Manjit Singh, Jasminder Singh @ Jassi, Paramjit Singh and Manmohan Singh. However, no challan was submitted against the present petitioner and another co-accused, namely, Pawan Kumar. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::3:: 4. During the course of the Trial, five co-accused of the petitioners against whom the challan was submitted came to be acquitted vide a judgment dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:- 10. Having considered the arguments and evaluating the prosecution story, the worth noticing facts are that Amardeep Singh Chandi was abducted by three persons who are not known to him. Nor are they known to Pardeep Singh Chandi, the brother of Amardeep Singh who happens to be passing through that way and by chance witnessed Amardeep Singh being abducted by the accused persons. It is really matter of surprise that the said abduction was witnessed by no one but the brother of Amardeep Singh who by chance happens to be there. It is worth noticing that where abduction took place it is the happening area of the city. PW1 Pardeep Singh and PW2 Amardeep Singh have themselves admitted in their testimony that the road in front of hotel HK 52 was crowded with traffic. It is astonishing that no other person on that road but Pardeep Singh had seen the occurrence taking place despite the fact that it was quite rushy area. Then comes the contradiction between the statements of PW1 Pardeep Singh and PW2 Amardeep Singh. PW1 has stated that he tried to reach out to his brother but due to rush on the road before he could reach to help his brother they had left the spot. He has stated that none from the public gathered there and that it might be possible that no one else had witnessed or noticed the kidnapping. Whereas PW2 has stated in his cross examination that he noticed many people collected at the spot during incidence. None intervened to save him. This is one material contradiction which can not be SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::4:: believed to be the one that came out with faded memory. First of all why the accused would plan to abduct Amardeep Singh from the area where the roads are full of traffic rush. And then the abduction takes place right in front of HK 52 Hotel which has CCTV camera on that side. PW6 SI Nishan Singh has submitted in his cross-examination that they checked the camera in front of hotel HK 52 but that did not indicate the presence of Pajero vehicle having registration No. PB02BV1000. He has further submitted in his cross examination that he has seen the recording of said CCTV camera and admitted it to be correct that no such incident was recorded in said CCTV camera which may corroborate the oral version of kidnapping given by the witnesses. It shows that no such occurrence had taken place in front of hotel HK 52 as stated by the prosecution witnesses which belies the story of prosecution. Neither any of the accused was with muffled faces nor had they blind folded Amardeep Singh. And why would they also take the Pajero of Amardeep Singh along with their car Innova behind them when they have already abducted Amardeep Singh and then why would they park the Pajero car at Gurudwara Shaheedan Sahib which is the most populated area. It is admitted by PW2 Amandeep Singh that he was taken to Shaheedan Sahib gurudwara through Hall Bazar and also admitted that the area of Hall bazar is having rush with heavy traffic. There does not look like that the scene projected by the prosecution was in any way a case of abduction of Amardeep Singh. PW2 has admitted that Gurudwara Shaheedan Sahib has CCTV cameras, strangely what to talk about procuring CCTV footage of the Gurudwara Shaheedan Sahib, the IO PW 6 Nishan Singh has stated in his cross examination that he does not know about the fact that the accused had parked the Pajero car at the parking of Shaheedan Sahib Gurudwara. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::5:: 11. Coming to Ruqa Ex.PA, contents of FIR and then the examination in chief of complainant Pardeep Singh, who has consistently stated that the accused by pushing his brother in the Innova car fled from the spot and also one of them took along with them the Pajero car of his brother behind them. He has no where stated that he had also followed them. But the cross examination of PW1 reveals different version. He has stated that he made telephone call at 100 number immediately. He has also made an improvement that he followed the car of the accused initially till Red Cross Bhawan from where he lost sight of the car as one Rehra came in between his car as a result of which he could not follow that car. So far as regard calling at No.100 by Pardeep Singh is concerned, even PW6 SI Nishan Singh is also silent in his examination in chief but in his cross examination he has stated that he first received information on his mobile phone and the complainant also made a call to him on his mobile at the same time. Then the complainant came himself. What on earth would instill the idea in the mind of complainant to call up only SI Nishan Singh and also to approach only SI Nishan Singh for recording complaint before even he reached the place of naka. According to PW6 he checked camera in front of the hotel HK 52 and he made an attempt to secure some public witness whereas PW1 Pardeep Singh has stated in his cross examination that when he alongwith SI Nishan Singh had come to the place of occurrence he did not find any person at the spot. In his presence SI Nishan Singh had not inquired about the incident from any guard of hotel HK-52. 12. Next coming to the allegations of demanding ransom to the tune of Rs 10 crores. It is the stand of the complainant that after the accused fled from the place of occurrence by abducting his brother, he received a phone call on his mobile No.8146716544 SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::6:: from the mobile No.9915191019 of his brother Amardeep Singh and that his brother told him that five persons had abducted him and they were also talking with two more persons and also told him that they are demanding ransom to the tune of Rs.10 crores. The accused made his brother to call from his mobile to the mobile of the complainant. The accused also talked to him on that day and demanded the ransom of Rs.10 crores to release his brother. Here I take a pause and once again visualize the statement of complainant with respect to the persons who abducted his brother. At the time when the accused were abducting his brother they were three in number and one was sitting on the driving seat. Apparently the complainant did not know these persons who were present at the time of occurrence. But he already knew accused Varun Sareen. As per the prosecution version accused Varun Sareen was not present at the time of occurrence. According to the statement of PW2 Amardeep Singh, Varun Sareen joined the accused on the way. But as per the complainant when his brother called him up while still abducted he stated that five persons have abducted him. But why did he not disclose the name of Varun Sareen to the complainant whom he already had known. Further coming to the timings of the entire scenario, the abduction takes place at 8:30 PM. The complainant talks with the accused on the phone at 10/10:30 PM and he meets SI Nishan Singh at 11/11:30 PM. Why did he not make the allusion of the fact to the IO that the accused had demanded the ransom of Rs.10 crores for releasing his brother. In his statement to the IO which was recorded after the complainant received the phone from the accused demanding the ransom to the tune of Rs.10 crores. The complainant has stated that he believes that his brother has been kidnapped for ransom. He has not mentioned to the IO that he has received the phone call from the accused persons SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::7:: demanding ransom to the tune of Rs.10 crores which fact was already in his knowledge. More so, when it was the case of abduction, and phone of brother of the complainant was operating, it was very easy for the IO to get the location tracked of the accused persons and have an access to them instead of just wandering around on roads at night and doing nothing. All IO SI Nishan Singh has done for corroborating the prosecution case was taking the call details of mobile phones of Pardeep Singh and Amardeep Singh to prove that the accused talked with the complainant from the mobile phone of Amardeep Singh but in the absence of conversation details on those numbers, it can not be inferred that it was accused who talked with the complainant. Precious little was done by the IO to procure the CCTV footage of front of hotel HK 52 or to procure the call details of accused persons to show that they had some kind of inter se connectivity prior to the occurrence or that they were hatching a plan to abduct Amardeep Singh. And if at all the complainant had called up SI Nishan Singh on his mobile number before even reaching out to him for help their call detail must also have reflected in the call details Ex PW8/A which is an important piece of evidence to build up a link of the prosecution story. 13. Again going back to the statement of PW1 Pardeep Singh in his chief, he has stated that on the day of occurrence he had received a phone call from the mobile number of his brother who told him that there were five persons who had abducted him and they were also talking with two more persons and told him that they are demanding the ransom to the tune of Rs.10 crores. Adverting to the examination in chief of PW2 Amardeep Singh. As per their story the timings for calling up Pardeep Singh were about 10/10:30 PM. PW2 has stated in his examination in chief that they kept on driving the Innova car SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::8:: while keeping him confined in that vehicle the whole night. In the morning they took him to one colony and he found that they were also talking with two more persons in connection with ransom amount. So whether Amardeep Singh heard the accused persons talking with those two persons before 10/10:30 PM or was that in the morning is contradictory. 14. The next to note is testimony of PW4 HC Sarabjit Singh. He has deposed in his examination in chief to the effect that on 21.08.2016, he was posted at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar and on that day, Inspector Baldev Singh handed over special reports to him to deliver the same to Ilaqa Magistrate and other senior Officers. Firstly, he delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate which is Ex.PW4/A and thereafter to other senior officers of the police within time and without any delay. So long the special reports remained in his possession, same was not tampered with. His statement was recorded by the IO. In his cross examination he has admitted that as per Ex.PW4/A, the FIR was entered in the computer system of police station at 3:45 am. Having a look at Ex.PW4/A it reveals that FIR was registered at 3:43 AM on 20.08.2016. He has stated that he had delivered the special reports at 1.00 PM on 21.08.2016. No reasons whatsoever have come forth for such a long delay in sending the special reports which wraps the prosecution story into a web of doubt. 15. Then comes the most significant testimony of PW5 Vishal Sharma whose evidence if closely scrutinized debunks a great deal. In his examination in chief he has deposed that he is the registered owner of car Innova bearing registration No.DL-1- Temp-AV-4153. This vehicle was being driven by his driver Manmohan Singh, resident of Majitha road, Amritsar. It was a Taxi vehicle and said Manmohan Singh used to keep the said car with him. On 19.08.2016, the car Innova was taken by SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::9:: Manmohan Singh as a driver for the use of raiding police party. Later on, he came to know that his car has been used for kidnapping of a person. In his cross examination he has stated that on 19.08.2016, Manmohan Singh was sent with Innova car with their directions that said car was book by some CBI officials for raiding purpose. Then he took the above said vehicle for the above said purpose. 16. From this very statement of PW5 it is crystal clear that the car was not hired by the accused persons for the purpose of kidnapping but by the police. Coming to further cross examination of this witness by Sh.Ashwani Sharma and Sh.PM Zakhmi, Advocates defence counsel for accused Varun Sareen and Manjit Singh wherein he has admitted that on 19.08.2016 at about 9:30/10 PM he called up his driver Manmohan Singh who disclosed to him that the passengers of vehicle i.e. accused and complainant Amardeep Singh Chandi were taking dinner at MH Hotel, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. After some time, his driver made a call to him and told him that the police officials including Inspector Arun Sharma and SI Nishan Singh alongwith police party had reached at MJ Hotel. His driver told him on phone that when police reached at the spot, at that time, accused and Amardeep Singh were consuming their meals peacefully and amicably. Thereafter, he alongwith his partner Rishi Kumar reached at MJ Hotel. He and his partner questioned the police officials as to why they were taking Manmohan Singh and their vehicle alongwith them. On his query, instead of giving any reasonable and proper answer to that, Inspector out of outraged broke the number plate of Innova car by kicking the same. When they reached over there, there was no circumstance to suggest or make them to draw any inference that Amardeep Singh Chandi was under the process of kidnapping. He also admitted it as correct that the police SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::10:: officials took Amardeep Singh and accused into custody alongwith Innova car and his partner Rishi. Rishi was however lateron released by the police in the morning of next day after due persuasion. He denied the suggestion put to him that he had made a tutored version in his examination in chief as tutored to him by the police officials. He further stated that the evidence given by him in the court in his cross examination is true disclosure of real events what was happened on that day. This is none other than the prosecution witness whose statement has left no doubt about the fact that the complainant and his brother had hatchet a serious conspiracy in connivance and support of IO SI Nishan Singh and other police officials. In order defy the statement of PW5 the prosecution was free to cross examine this witness on the statement that went against them or could also produce the call details of accused Manmohan Singh and PW5 Vishal Sharma to bring forth the fact that no such conversation took place between them but they did not do so for the reasons best known to them. As evident all the mobile phones were taken into custody by the IO SI Nishan Singh then why he could not produce even their call details before this court to establish the genuineness of their story. Another admission of SI Nishan Singh is also irking my mind. He has stated in his cross examination that the names of HC Hardev Singh and constable Ajmer Singh has been mentioned as members of the police party in FIR and are missing in report u/s 173 CrPC and instead of them the names of Purshottam Lal and Kulwinder Singh are mentioned in challan. The only reason for doing so could be best explained by IO SI Nishan Singh. 17. Now moving to the last part of story when the police team apprehends the accused persons alongwith Amardeep Singh and with both Innova and Pajero cars the next day of the occurrence. During the investigation of the case when IO along SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::11:: with other police officials were present at Taran Wala pull Amritsar, he received secret information that two cars out of which one is Innova and other is Pajero consisting of 5/6 persons were standing near the Diamond Avenue Colony, Silver Estate. In pursuance to said information he along with police officials conducted raid on said place disclosed by the informer and there they apprehended accused with two cars Innova and Pajero with five accused persons and Amandeep Singh. 18. From the entire gamut of this prosecution story it reveals the patent illegalities which are beyond cure. It is difficult to reconcile with the logic that the accused would plan to abduct a person from the middle of the crowded road with their exposed faces and then traveling through the roads which are prone to heavy traffic, the abduction being witnessed by his brother alone who out of the blue shows up on the spot and then the abducted person is recovered unharmed along with his car on the next day. The testimony of PW5 Vishal Sharma indicates the IO SI Nishan Singh to be the author of the whole story. This also abundantly makes it clear that the police was hand in glove with the complainant party. The story of prosecution is itself dented with multiple suspicion. The evidence on file shows that the story planted upon the accused persons utterly lacks in credence. Taking note of all these aspects this court comes to the conclusion that the accused are innocent and have been made a scapegoat in the business entanglements of complainant and their partners/share holders. 19. In view of the detailed discussion made above, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused stand acquitted of the charges under section 120-B, 364 read with section 120-B of IPC framed against them. All the accused are on bail. Their bail and surety bonds SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::12:: also stand discharged. The case property be dealt with as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compilation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was never challaned on the conclusion of the investigation. In the case of the co-accused, they faced Trial and have been acquitted. The evidence led in the case of the co-accused has been specifically disbelived. The same evidence is to be led against the present petitioner as well. It would be an exercise in futility in case he is to face the Trial in this situation. Reliance is placed on Amaninder Singh @ Maninder Singh versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-17709-2022 decided on 15.04.2024) to contend that the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae has not disputed the factual assertions that no challan was submitted against the petitioner, that the co- accused have been acquitted and the case of the petitioner is on a similar footing with one difference and i.e. that he is alleged to be a conspirator. 7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 27.03.2026, contends that the petitioner was arrested and granted the concession of bail. While his co-accused were challaned, no challan was submitted against him for which appropriate departmental proceedings have been initiated against the investigating officer ASI Gurjinder Singh. He, however, concedes that the co-accused of the petitioner have faced Trial and have been acquitted and that the case of the petitioner is on a similar footing. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-25897-2023 ::13:: 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Admittedly, the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Varun Sareen, Manjit Singh, Jasminder Singh @ Jassi, Paramjit Singh and Manmohan Singh who were challaned, faced Trial and have been acquitted. The Trial Court has already appreciated the statements of the relevant witnesses in detail and only then acquitted the accused. No fresh evidence shall be adduced in the case of the petitioner in case is was to face Trial. This Court in similar circumstances had quashed the FIR in the case of Amaninder Singh @ Maninder Singh (supra). 10. Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the continuance of the proceedings emanating out of the FIR (Annexure P-1) would be sheer wastage of valuable Court time and therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the FIR (Annexure P-1), supplementary challan dated 01.08.2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioner only. 11. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. July 16, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.17 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh