CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2026 Partap Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No.113 dated 04.07.2022, registered under Sections 447, 511, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar (Rural), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant Surinderpal Kaur alleged that her husband, late Jarnail Singh, had obtained 16 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land on a 99-years lease from Amar Singh in the year 1970 and the mutation of lease had been duly sanctioned. After the death of her husband in the year 1993, the cultivation entries (Girdawari) were recorded in her favour and in favour of her children. Subsequently, the land was given on contract to one Sukhchain Singh for cultivation. It is alleged that on MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -2- 26.06.2022, Sukhchain Singh informed the complainant that accused persons, namely Iqbal Singh, Ranjit Singh, Sharanjit Singh, petitioner No. 3 Jagtar Singh, petitioner No. 1 Partap Singh, petitioner No. 4 Gursewak Singh, petitioner No. 2 Gurpreet Singh and Manjit Kaur, armed with kirpans, gandasis, datars and sticks, came to the leased land while raising lalkaras. They allegedly destroyed the paddy seedlings sown over about two killas of land with the intention of forcibly taking possession of the property. The accused persons are also alleged to have criminally intimidated Sukhchain Singh and trespassed upon the land, thereby causing damage to the standing crop. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 447, 511, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. 3. During investigation, co-accused Gursewak Singh and Gurpreet Singh were found innocent on the recommendation of the Police Bureau of Investigation, Amritsar Rural, duly approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Challan under Section 193 BNSS was, however, presented against the remaining accused, namely Iqbal Singh, Ranjit Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Partap Singh and Manjit Kaur. The offences being bailable in nature, the arrested accused were released on bail. 4. Since petitioners No. 2 and 4 have not been challaned, the present petition is rendered infructuous qua them. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for rest of the two petitioners that they have been falsely implicated due to a long-standing civil dispute relating to possession and leasehold rights over the land in question. It is argued that the dispute has been given a criminal colour only to pressurize MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -3- the petitioners. The petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence and no specific overt act or weapon has been attributed to them in the FIR. The allegations are vague and omnibus in nature and fail to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence qua the petitioners. There is an unexplained delay of eight days in registration of the FIR, which creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It is submitted that the complainant party is politically influential and has falsely implicated the petitioners due to personal and political rivalry. The petitioners are respectable persons having clean antecedents and have not committed any offence. Since the dispute essentially pertains to possession of agricultural land and arises out of civil litigation between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed qua the petitioners No. 1 and 3. 6. Status report has been filed, as per which, petitioners No. 2 and 4 have not been challaned after being found innocent during investigation. However, qua petitioners No. 1 and 3, learned State counsel has argued that the FIR discloses specific allegations regarding criminal trespass, mischief causing damage to the standing crop, criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly against them. The allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the matter requires adjudication on the basis of evidence during trial. Learned State counsel further submits that the petition seeks appreciation of disputed questions of fact and evidence, which cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -4- Section 528 BNSS. This Court is not supposed to conduct a mini-trial while considering a petition for quashing and that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 8. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and ambit of the Court’s power under Section 528 of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) as spelt out in several judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. The well settled proposition of law is that in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not expected to analyze all the facts, which are to be placed before the High Court. The power conferred under this section is very specific. To secure the ends of justice, to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to make any such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, such power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn up some guidelines in some categories of cases by way of illustration to circumscribe the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of the justice or to give effect to an order of the Court. A celebrated pronouncement on this point is the case cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal : 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed different categories of cases wherein the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -5- otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:- “102 (1) 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; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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; (3) 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; (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -6- which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and 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; (7) 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 personal grudge.” 9. The principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) have been followed in a catena of judgments. In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, yet, the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings, where essential ingredients of the offence are not made out. In Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint, as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, based on the evidence collected during the course of the trial. In Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC Online SC 685, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -7- that the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial or enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The following observations were made: “13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda1 held to the following effect: “28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -8- appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.” 10. Similar view was taken in Minakshi Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online 643, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability and genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Reference can further be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 12. In Neeharika Infrastructure vs. State of Maharashtra : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court observed that the Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. They do have power to quash. The test is whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence? The merits of the allegations are not to be entered into nor the power of the investigating agency to investigate into allegations involving the commission of a cognizable offence is to be trenched upon. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -9- 13. Similar position of law was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Malik vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed as follows: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).” 14. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that no ground is made out for exercising the inherent MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -10- jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The FIR specifically attributes allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 of having formed part of an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed upon the land in dispute, damaged the standing paddy crop and extended threats to the complainant party. During investigation, petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 were found innocent and have not been challaned. However, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have been sent up for trial after investigation and the police report under Section 193 of the BNSS has already been presented before the competent Court. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding false implication, political rivalry, delay in registration of the FIR, absence from the place of occurrence and the dispute being of a civil nature are all matters of defence, which require appreciation of evidence and adjudication during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the correctness or otherwise of the allegations or conduct a mini trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Merely because a civil dispute regarding possession of the land also exists between the parties would not justify quashing of criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The allegations cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable as to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. None of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) or the subsequent judgments governing the exercise of inherent powers are attracted to the facts of the present case. Consequently, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR or the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54260-2025 (O&M) -11- consequential proceedings qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 15. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 08.07.2026 (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 2026.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document