IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 126 Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-54219 of 2025 Date of Decision: September 25, 2025 Teeka Ram Hooda ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA PRESENT: - Mr. Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. SUBHAS MEHLA, J The present petition has been filed for quashing FIR No.0228 dated 01.05.2025 under Sections 115, 117(2), 126, 190, 191(3), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), registered at Police Station, Camp Palwal, District Palwal. 2. The present FIR has been lodged by respondent No.4- Archana Devi. She alleged that her husband-Satpal are two brothers. Her husband is suffering from polio since birth and walks with the help of sticks. The petitioner is brother of complainant’s sister-in-law Hemlata. Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate at Palwal, had filed a case against the complainant and her husband in Police Station, Chandhat in 2018 for assault and robbery with Hemlata. The case was fixed on 03.04.2025 in Palwal Court. They had information that petitioner will cause harm to them in case they went to Court for hearing. Complainant’s husband bought a sickle while going to Court, which was kept under a tin shed in front of the Court gate. At around 12:30 pm, after taking date from the Court, when complainant and her husband came under the tin shed to take away sickle, that time, petitioner- Teeka Ram Hooda alongwith his companions Jogendra Singh, Advocate AVIN KUMAR 2025.09.27 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-54219-2025 [2] Pradhan Bar Association, Palwal and Dharmendra Tewatia, Advocate, and 10-15 other lawyers forcible stopped them on the way. They snatched the sickle and bag and petitioner slapped complainant’s husband. He hit Satpal with the stick that he uses for walking. His companions also kicked, punched and slapped Satpal. While she was trying to help her husband, they scratched her body with their hands, slapped and punched her and torn her suit that she was wearing. Petitioner fired in air with the weapon in his hands, threatened to kill them and left the spot alongwith his companions. Police personnel came to the spot. They were shifted to hospital and treated medically at Government Hospital, Palwal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a version and cross version case. It is the complainant party who caused injuries to petitioner, regarding which the FIR No.0176 dated 04.04.2025 under Sections 109(1), 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 351(2), 61 of BNS, has been registered at Police Station, Camp Palwal. Petitioner was assaulted by the complainant party in Court with deadly weapons on 03.04.2025. SI and SHO Yashuvir misbehaved with the lawyers and other associates and released the complainant party from custody Sharp edged weapon and a bullet shell recovered from the spot were deposited in the Police Station Malkhana through a diary but the IO did not make the recovered weapons as case property in the said FIR No.176 dated 04.04.2025. 4. Learned State counsel contended that version of the complainant is supported by medical evidence, and investigation is going on. There is no ground for quashing the FIR. 5. Heard. AVIN KUMAR 2025.09.27 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-54219-2025 [3] 6. Allegation against the petitioner is of bearing the complainant and her husband with stick; giving punches and slapping. Besides tearing off the suit worn by the complainant, and of firing in air. Resultantly, Section 117(2) BNS (erstwhile Section 325 IPC) has been incorporated in this case after thorough investigation. Ocular version of the complainant is supported by medical evidence. 7. It is well settled that the power under Section 528 of BNSS. is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories where quashing may be justified but cautioned that such jurisdiction cannot be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been reiterated that the High Court should not embark upon appreciation of evidence at this stage, and quashing is impermissible where the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence. 8. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS cannot be exercised in this case where there are disputed facts which can be adjudicated at appropriate stage after leading evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE September 25, 2025 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2025.09.27 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.