139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.41256 of 2026 Date of decision: 28.07.2026 Bhinder Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Simranjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed Under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing/setting aside of FIR No. 89 dated 21.08.2025 under Section 118(1) (corresponding to Section 324 IPC), 115(2) (corresponding to Section 323 IPC), 191(3) (corresponding to Section 148 IPC), 190 (corresponding to Section 149 IPC) of BNSS, 2023, registered at Police Station Arif Ke, Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned FIR has been registered without there being any material to constitute the alleged offences. It is submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners and that he has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of two days, SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M No.41256 of 2026 -2- which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. Learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. 4. The contention raised by the petitioners that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days does not, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing the FIR. The petitioners have primarily raised disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Such issues are required to be examined by the trial Court during the course of trial. Furthermore, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the present case falls within any of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 6. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the pleas, as taken in this petition, at appropriate stage before the appropriate Court. (H.S.GREWAL) 28.07.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment