CRM- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 111 Lovish Ganotra and others State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:-. KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. filed for quashing of FIR No.0557 dated 15.12.2022, under Sections 313, 323, 354, 406, 498 Sonipat, District Sonipat 2. petitioners in the instant FIR registered on the statement of the complainant are that the petitioners conspired to deceitfully secure the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the daughter of complainant respondent N including gold, cash, and a even a car, the petitioners allegedly began harassing daughter of complainant for more dowry, verbally and physically abusing her, and pressuring her to transfer famil Allegations of forced abortion, confinement, threats to the life of the prosecutrix, and manipulation to gain control over family assets were also made, because of which the prosecutrix suffered from severe mental trauma, depression, and suicid -M-23447-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: Lovish Ganotra and others Versus Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana ***** KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral) The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0557 dated 15.12.2022, under Sections 313, 323, 354, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line Sonipat, District Sonipat. The long and short of the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the instant FIR registered on the statement of the complainant are that the petitioners conspired to deceitfully secure the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the daughter of complainant respondent No.2. Despite receiving substantial gifts during the wedding, including gold, cash, and a even a car, the petitioners allegedly began harassing daughter of complainant for more dowry, verbally and physically abusing her, and pressuring her to transfer famil Allegations of forced abortion, confinement, threats to the life of the prosecutrix, and manipulation to gain control over family assets were also made, because of which the prosecutrix suffered from severe mental trauma, depression, and suicidal thoughts, for which she had to receive - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23447-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Advocate for the petitioner(s). uwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana. The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0557 dated 15.12.2022, under Sections 313, A and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line of the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the instant FIR registered on the statement of the complainant are that the petitioners conspired to deceitfully secure the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the daughter of complainant- o.2. Despite receiving substantial gifts during the wedding, including gold, cash, and a even a car, the petitioners allegedly began harassing daughter of complainant for more dowry, verbally and physically abusing her, and pressuring her to transfer family property. Allegations of forced abortion, confinement, threats to the life of the prosecutrix, and manipulation to gain control over family assets were also made, because of which the prosecutrix suffered from severe mental al thoughts, for which she had to receive ) s The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0557 dated 15.12.2022, under Sections 313, A and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line of the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the instant FIR registered on the statement of the complainant are that the petitioners conspired to deceitfully secure the - o.2. Despite receiving substantial gifts during the wedding, including gold, cash, and a even a car, the petitioners allegedly began harassing daughter of complainant for more dowry, verbally and y property. Allegations of forced abortion, confinement, threats to the life of the prosecutrix, and manipulation to gain control over family assets were also made, because of which the prosecutrix suffered from severe mental al thoughts, for which she had to receive KAPIL 2025.08.22 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- psychiatric treatment. For her well being, the prosecutrix was relocated to Canada by her family, despite which petitioner No.1 continued harassing her by instituting false police complaints and leveling threats. 3. FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 against the petitioner innocent by the investigating agency and challan was pr against petitioner No.1, whose marriage was solemnized with the daughter of respondent No.2 on allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally vague and ill founded. In fact, throughout the period of registration of the instant FIR made any compla evidence on record to even No.1. It is therefore prayed that the instant FIR, which is nothing but the abuse of process of law, be quashed against the presen 4. filed by way of affidavit of Ass Sonipat, submits that on statement of was conducted wherein it was found that though against petitioners No.2 to 6 could not be established, a prima facie was found to be present against petitioner No.1 challan was presented only against petitioner No.1 before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that prosecutrix was also recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C -M-23447-2024 (O&M) psychiatric treatment. For her well being, the prosecutrix was relocated to Canada by her family, despite which petitioner No.1 continued harassing her by instituting false police complaints and leveling threats. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 against the petitioners, however, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were declared innocent by the investigating agency and challan was pr against petitioner No.1, whose marriage was solemnized with the daughter of respondent No.2 on 04.12.2020. allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally vague and ill founded. In fact, throughout the period of registration of the instant FIR, the daughter of made any complaint against the petitioners. evidence on record to even make out a prima facie case against petitioner . It is therefore prayed that the instant FIR, which is nothing but the abuse of process of law, be quashed against the presen Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report filed by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, C Sonipat, submits that on 15.12.2022, the instant FIR statement of complainant-mother of the prosecutrix. A thorough inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that though against petitioners No.2 to 6 could not be established, a prima facie was found to be present against petitioner No.1 challan was presented only against petitioner No.1 before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that thereafter, prosecutrix was also recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 15.12.2023, wherein she has reiterated the allegations - 2- psychiatric treatment. For her well being, the prosecutrix was relocated to Canada by her family, despite which petitioner No.1 continued harassing her by instituting false police complaints and leveling threats. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 s, however, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were declared innocent by the investigating agency and challan was presented only against petitioner No.1, whose marriage was solemnized with the 04.12.2020. It is submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally vague and ill founded. In fact, throughout the period of two years prior to the , the daughter of respondent No.2 had not int against the petitioners. Moreover, there is no make out a prima facie case against petitioner . It is therefore prayed that the instant FIR, which is nothing but the abuse of process of law, be quashed against the present petitioners. Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report istant Commissioner of Police, City the instant FIR was lodged on the mother of the prosecutrix. A thorough inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that though the allegations levelled against petitioners No.2 to 6 could not be established, a prima facie was found to be present against petitioner No.1-husband. It was thereafter that challan was presented only against petitioner No.1 before the learned thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section rein she has reiterated the allegations psychiatric treatment. For her well being, the prosecutrix was relocated to Canada by her family, despite which petitioner No.1 continued harassing instant FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 s, however, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were declared esented only against petitioner No.1, whose marriage was solemnized with the It is submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally vague and ill two years prior to the had not Moreover, there is no make out a prima facie case against petitioner . It is therefore prayed that the instant FIR, which is nothing but the Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report ity on the mother of the prosecutrix. A thorough inquiry the allegations levelled against petitioners No.2 to 6 could not be established, a prima facie was hereafter that challan was presented only against petitioner No.1 before the learned the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section rein she has reiterated the allegations KAPIL 2025.08.22 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- levelled in the complaint against petitioner(s) on 09.12.2024, under Sections 323, 406, 498 506 IPC, prosecution. 5. 6. extraordinary jurisdiction to quash FIRs as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where not even a prima facie case can be established against the accused person, or that continu proceedings would amount to gross miscarriage of justice, that an FIR should be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in & Anr. 2023(4) SCC 338 position of law that while exe High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.” 7. Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastruc Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118. In para 57, it is observed and held as under: -M-23447-2024 (O&M) levelled in the complaint. Charges in the instant case stand framed against petitioner(s) on 09.12.2024, under Sections 323, 406, 498 , and a total of 11 witnesses were cution. Heard. It is settled law that the Courts must not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash FIRs as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where not even a prima facie case can be established against the accused person, or that continu proceedings would amount to gross miscarriage of justice, that an FIR should be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in & Anr. 2023(4) SCC 338 held that, “9. Even otherwise, it is position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.” The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastruc Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118. In para 57, it is observed and held as under:- "From the aforesaid decisions of this Court , right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (sup principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; - 3- in the instant case stand framed against petitioner(s) on 09.12.2024, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and were cited to be examined by the It is settled law that the Courts must not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash FIRs as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where not even a prima facie case can be established against the accused person, or that continuing of criminal proceedings would amount to gross miscarriage of justice, that an FIR should be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Vs. M. Maridoss held that, “9. Even otherwise, it is a settled rcising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.” The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118. In "From the aforesaid decisions of this Court , right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; in the instant case stand framed A and cited to be examined by the It is settled law that the Courts must not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash FIRs as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where not even a prima facie case can be ing of criminal proceedings would amount to gross miscarriage of justice, that an FIR State Vs. M. Maridoss a settled rcising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the facie The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by ture Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118. In "From the aforesaid decisions of this Court , right from the decision of the ra), the following i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to KAPIL 2025.08.22 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- -M-23447-2024 (O&M) iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing sho circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court ); v) 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 /complai vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) 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. The inherent power of the court is, however, 39 recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the 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. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the c officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court ; - 4- iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court ); v) 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; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the nce the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, 39 recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section judiciary and the police are complementary, not x) 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 offences; Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence 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 sion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or 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 known procedure; xiii) 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 iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an uld be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the v) While examining an FIR /complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the nce the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, 39 recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section judiciary and the police are complementary, not interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must offence 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 sion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no omplainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more KAPIL 2025.08.22 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- 8. case is made out. statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against petitioner No.1 on 09.12.2024. extraordinary powers of this Cou warranted, involvement of the petitioner(s) ascertained at the time of the trial, due opportunity to prove innocence before the learned Trial Court, as per the procedure established in law. 9. 10. accordingly. 18.08.2025 Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -M-23447-2024 (O&M) xiv) However, at the same time, the court , if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self 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; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cogniza the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR ." In the case at hand, upon a perusal of the FIR, case is made out. The prosecutrix has also reiterated the allega statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against petitioner No.1 on 09.12.2024. Trite to say that under such circumstances, exercising of the extraordinary powers of this Court to quash an FIR warranted, and may lead to travesty of justice. involvement of the petitioner(s) questions ascertained at the time of the trial, wherein ue opportunity to prove innocence before the learned Trial Court, as per the procedure established in law. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - 5- xiv) 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 xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the upon a perusal of the FIR, a prima facie The prosecutrix has also reiterated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against petitioner No.1 on Trite to say that under such circumstances, exercising of the rt to quash an FIR would not be and may lead to travesty of justice. All the arguments qua the questions of fact, all of which shall be wherein the petitioner(s) would have ue opportunity to prove innocence before the learned Trial Court, as per Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No xiv) However, at the same time, the court , if it thinks fit, regard being had ed 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 xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on ble offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the a prima facie tions in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against petitioner No.1 on Trite to say that under such circumstances, exercising of the not be All the arguments qua the of fact, all of which shall be he petitioner(s) would have ue opportunity to prove innocence before the learned Trial Court, as per Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of KAPIL 2025.08.22 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document