CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Kailash Chand and others ...Petitioners Versus Jagdish ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate for the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. CRM-30127-2026 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. 2. CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Criminal Revision No.26 of 2019, titled as Jagdish v. Kailash Chand and others, as well as the consequential summoning order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 304, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC in Complaint No.COMI-107 of 2016, titled as Jagdish v. Kailash Chand and others. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -2- 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid complaint was filed by respondent- Jagdish, father of deceased Sandeep, alleging that on 12.06.2016, Sandeep had left his village along with an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- for delivering the same to his in-laws at Sirsa. On the way, while he was talking with his friends Rajesh and Vikas near village Dadu, the petitioners and some other police officials reached at the spot and checked the documents of their motorcycle. On finding that Sandeep was not carrying the vehicle documents, they snatched his mobile phone and the cash amount. It was further alleged that all three young men were forcibly taken to Police Post Singhpura and were illegally detained. Their mobile phones were taken away and they were not permitted to contact their family members. It was alleged that the police officials threatened them with dire consequences and also gave beatings to Sandeep. Despite requests made by Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of village Dadu, for their release, the police officials refused to do so. As per the complaint, during the intervening night at about 2:00 a.m., Sandeep complained of severe chest pain. Although his companions repeatedly requested the police officials to provide medical assistance, no immediate attention was given. Ultimately, he was taken to Ashirwad Hospital, Kalanwali, where he was declared to be brought dead. Thereafter, post-mortem examination of his dead body was conducted at the General Hospital, Sirsa. 4. As per the further allegations, immediately after the incident, a judicial enquiry under Section 176(1) of the Code was ordered regarding the custodial death. During the enquiry, statements of witnesses were recorded, the post-mortem report, chemical examination report and opinion of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -3- Board of Doctors were considered. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry, ultimately concluded that no material existed to indicate that the police officials or any lock-up inmate had any role in the death of Sandeep and opined that the death appeared to be natural rather than homicidal or suicidal. The enquiry report was forwarded on 20.03.2017. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judicial enquiry, the respondent filed the private complaint. Initially, the learned Magistrate declined to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code and proceeded to record preliminary evidence. The complainant examined himself and several witnesses including Vikas (CW-5), who claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence inside the police post and Dr. Deepak Kumar, a member of the Medical Board. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 11.01.2019, dismissed the complaint after holding that no sufficient material existed to summon the accused police officials. 6. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision No.26 of 2019. The learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, by order dated 02.08.2023, set aside the dismissal order observing that the learned Magistrate had failed to properly appreciate the testimony of CW-5 Vikas and other material available on record. The matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order. Pursuant thereto, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali, passed the impugned summoning order dated 10.08.2023 summoning the petitioners for offences under Sections 304, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -4- impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid complaint by abusing the process of law, despite there being no evidence connecting them with the death of Sandeep. It is argued that petitioner No.1 was not even present at the police post when Sandeep complained of chest pain and he firstly reached Ashirwad Hospital only after being informed by the officials on duty. Petitioner No.2 merely acted as a photographer, whereas petitioner No.3 only completed formalities relating to the post-mortem and handing over of the dead body. Therefore, no specific role has been attributed to any of the petitioners. It is further argued that the judicial enquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code, after considering the statements of witnesses, the post-mortem report, chemical examination report and medical opinion, categorically concluded that the death was natural and that no police official had any role in the occurrence. The learned Magistrate, who initially dismissed the complaint, had rightly relied upon the said enquiry as well as the absence of any external injury on the body of the deceased. It is contended that the revisional Court completely ignored this valuable material and mechanically remanded the matter. 8. It is further argued that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order without independent application of mind and merely because the revisional Court remanded the matter. It is argued that even if the testimony of CW-5 Vikas is accepted at face value, no offence under Section 304 IPC is made out, particularly when the medical evidence does not support the allegation of assault. It is also submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against police officials in the absence of any prima facie evidence would amount to abuse of the process of Court. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -5- Moreso, no sanction under Section 197 of the Code had been obtained to launch prosecution against the petitioners. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. Reply has been filed by the respondent. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased had admittedly died while in police custody and, therefore, the matter requires a full-fledged trial. It is argued that the judicial enquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code is only a fact-finding exercise and cannot override the evidence led in a private complaint. The enquiry report does not have the status of substantive evidence and cannot foreclose criminal prosecution where sufficient prima facie material exists. It is further argued that the statements of ASI Khursheed and Constable Sukhjeet themselves disclose that Sandeep and his companions were apprehended on suspicion of involvement in narcotics activity. However, admittedly, no proceedings under the NDPS Act were initiated, thereby rendering the police version itself doubtful. It is further argued that CW-5 Vikas has specifically deposed that the deceased was beaten inside the police post, Rs.1,13,000/- was snatched from him and despite repeated requests, immediate medical assistance was denied to him. His testimony substantially corroborates the allegations made in the complaint and has rightly been relied upon by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order. The post- mortem report records the presence of blood and fluid in the trachea and the subsequent opinion regarding chronic lung disease itself raises disputed questions requiring examination of medical experts during trial. While submitting that the deceased was illegally detained and that his family members were never informed about the detention, it is prayed that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -6- petition be dismissed and the petitioners be relegated to face trial. 10. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 11. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is only required to examine whether the material available on record discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. A meticulous appreciation of the evidence, examination of its probative value or determination of the probable defence of the accused is wholly impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code (which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS). The truthfulness of rival versions and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by either side are matters which necessarily fall within the domain of the trial Court. 12. A perusal of the complaint and the preliminary evidence reveals that the respondent has consistently alleged that the deceased was illegally detained by the petitioners and other police officials, was subjected to physical assault while in custody and was denied timely medical assistance despite repeated requests made by his companions. The testimony of CW-5 Vikas, who claims to have accompanied the deceased throughout the relevant period, prima facie supports the allegations contained in the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge has specifically noticed that the learned Magistrate, while dismissing the complaint earlier, had failed to adequately consider the testimony of CW-5 as well as the surrounding circumstances emerging from the evidence. It was in these circumstances that the matter was remanded for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order after reconsidering the material available on record. The contention of the petitioners that the judicial enquiry under Section 176 of the Code MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -7- completely exonerates them also does not persuade this Court to interfere at this stage. The enquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code is essentially intended to ascertain the circumstances in which a custodial death has occurred. Such an enquiry cannot be equated with a regular criminal trial where witnesses are subjected to detailed examination and cross- examination and the evidence is tested in accordance with law. Merely because the enquiry officer recorded an opinion that the death appeared to be natural would not preclude the criminal Court from independently evaluating the evidence adduced before it in a private complaint. 13. Significantly, the respondent has questioned the very police version regarding the circumstances in which the deceased came to remain inside the police post. The respondent has also pointed out certain inconsistencies in the statements of the police officials and has asserted that although suspicion of narcotics activity was allegedly entertained, no proceedings under the NDPS Act were initiated. It has further been alleged that no intimation regarding the detention of the deceased was given to his family members and that the version that the deceased voluntarily stayed in the police post is inherently improbable. These are disputed factual issues which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code and necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. 14. Similarly, the medical evidence relied upon by the petitioners cannot be accepted in isolation at this stage. While the petitioners seek to rely upon the opinion that the deceased was suffering from chronic lung disease, the respondent has questioned the said opinion by pointing out that the post-mortem report and the subsequent medical opinion are not entirely MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -8- consistent and has asserted that the exact cause of death can only emerge after the concerned doctors are examined before the trial Court. Whether the death was purely natural or whether any act or omission on the part of the police officials contributed thereto are questions which require evidence and expert testimony and cannot be conclusively answered while exercising inherent jurisdiction. The submission regarding absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is also not liable to be accepted at this stage. The allegations in the complaint are of illegal detention, assault, criminal intimidation and denial of timely medical assistance resulting in the death of a person while in police custody. If such allegations are ultimately established, the acts complained of cannot prima facie be said to have been committed in discharge of official duty. Consequently, this question would also remain open to be considered at the appropriate stage, depending upon the evidence which may come on record during trial. 15. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code is well settled. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court or where no offence whatsoever is disclosed from the material available on record. In the present case, the complaint, the preliminary evidence and particularly the testimony of CW-5, coupled with the admitted fact that the deceased died while in police custody, constitute sufficient material to justify issuance of process. This Court would be travelling beyond the permissible limits of jurisdiction if it embarks upon a detailed appreciation of the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners or records findings on disputed questions of fact. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error either in the order dated MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43651-2023 (O&M) -9- 02.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa remanding the matter for fresh consideration or in the consequential summoning order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali. Both the orders are based upon a prima facie appreciation of the material available on record and do not warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this Court. 16. In view of the discussion as made above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 17. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and decide the same strictly on the basis of the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document