CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (132) CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.08.2026 AJAIB SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... Respondents -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Darshan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Anmol Dutt Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), praying for quashing of FIR No.837 dated 13.12.2024, registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa, initially under Sections 196, 34, 420 and 465 IPC, with Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC having been added during the course of investigation (corresponding to Sections 233, 3(5), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), along with the final report/challan presented under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.) dated GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 11.08.2025, presented before the learned Trial Court on 20.08.2025, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 1.1. A further prayer has been made for staying the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ellenabad, District Sirsa, in Case No. CHI-334-2025, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, during the pendency of the present petition. 2. The genesis of the controversy emanates from a long-standing civil dispute relating to immovable property. The petitioner's mother, late Smt. Surjeet Kaur, had instituted a civil suit challenging the validity of the General Power of Attorney dated 24.01.2006 and the consequential Sale Deed dated 15.11.2007 executed in favour of respondent No.2- complainant. During the pendency of the said civil proceedings, the petitioner sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was supplied by the competent public authority and subsequently produced before the Civil Court as Mark 'M' and Mark 'N'. 2.1. It is the petitioner's case that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2023, decreed the civil suit in favour of late Smt. Surjeet Kaur by declaring the impugned sale deed to be null and void. According to the petitioner, the Civil Court independently adjudicated the dispute on the basis of the evidence available on record and did not place reliance upon the RTI information while recording its findings. It is further contended that although the respondent-complainant had knowledge of the RTI documents since the year 2015, he neither questioned their authenticity during the civil trial nor initiated any proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., nor even raised any allegation of forgery while challenging the civil decree before the GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:3:- appellate Court. It is only after suffering an adverse judgment in the civil proceedings that the complainant initiated a series of criminal complaints alleging fabrication of the RTI information, thereby attempting to impart a criminal complexion to what is essentially a civil dispute. 2.2. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad, culminating in an enquiry report dated 22.07.2024, wherein it was concluded that the RTI information had indeed been prepared by the concerned police official and that the only lapse noticed was negligence in verification of the police record. Significantly, no criminal role was attributed either to the petitioner or to his mother, and only departmental action against the concerned police official was recommended. 2.3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid enquiry, the complainant submitted yet another representation dated 11.09.2024 and thereafter approached this Court by filing CRM-M-47699-2024, seeking only a direction for consideration of the said representation. Vide order dated 23.09.2024, this Court merely directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, without issuing any direction for registration of an FIR or initiation of criminal proceedings. 2.4. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, contempt proceedings came to be initiated alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, whereafter the impugned FIR dated 13.12.2024 came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registration of the impugned FIR is nothing but a consequence of the contempt proceedings initiated against the police authorities and is not GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:4:- founded upon any independent application of mind by the investigating agency. It is submitted that the complainant had earlier approached this Court only for issuance of a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation, and the order passed in CRM-M-47699-2024 titled Malkiat Singh vs. State of Haryana and others merely required the representation to be considered in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, this Court never directed registration of a criminal case against the petitioner. 3.1. It is further contended that the RTI information produced before the Civil Court as Mark 'N' neither constituted the basis of the civil decree nor conferred any undue advantage upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had merely sought information under the Right to Information Act by forwarding the prescribed application through registered post, and the reply was likewise dispatched to him by the competent authority through official channel. Thus, the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the preparation, issuance or authentication of the RTI reply and there exists no material to prima facie suggest any conspiracy or connivance between the petitioner and the concerned police official responsible for maintaining the record. 3.2. It is further argued that even the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police had categorically exonerated the petitioner and attributed, at the highest, negligence on the part of the concerned official while recommending only departmental action. Despite such findings, the investigating agency proceeded to register the present FIR solely to avoid the consequences arising out of the contempt proceedings. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 3.2. Learned counsel has further invited the attention of this Court to the fact that although late Smt. Surjeet Kaur had admittedly expired after registration of the FIR and prior to submission of the final report, she has nevertheless been shown as an accused in the police report presented under Section 193(3) BNSS, which, according to the petitioner, itself demonstrates the mechanical and perfunctory manner in which the investigation has been conducted. 3.3. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned criminal proceedings constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law, having been initiated not on the basis of any legally admissible material but merely as a collateral consequence of the contempt proceedings pending against the concerned police authorities. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned FIR, the final report and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Upon issuance of notice of motion, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant, filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record, and opposed the present petition. It is contended that the investigation has revealed specific and substantive allegations against the petitioner indicating his active involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the veracity and evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation are matters to be adjudicated during trial and do not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:6:- Accordingly, both the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 pray for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously examined the pleadings, the paper-book and the material placed on record with their able assistance. The rival submissions have received my thoughtful consideration. 6. The trial is presently at a nascent stage. At this preliminary juncture, it cannot be concluded that the impugned FIR has been instituted solely with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners or to obtain an undue advantage in the pending civil litigation. The legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings are too well settled to require elaboration. The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, fail to constitute any offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. The contours of the power to quash FIRs/complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Now Section 528 of BNSS) are well defined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991 (1) RCR(Criminal) 383 has laid down as following:- “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:7:- of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:8:- 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under 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. 108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (19) SCC 401, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively examined the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Reaffirming the well-settled principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is an extraordinary one and must be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases, though the expression GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:9:- "rarest of rare" in this context is not to be equated with the standard evolved for the imposition of the death penalty. 7.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot enter into the factual arena to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the complaint or the First Information Report. At that stage, the Court is neither expected to examine the defence available to the accused nor to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. It was further held that the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint. However, if, upon applying the well-established parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction and the self-imposed restraints recognised by judicial precedents, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Court is satisfied that the case falls within any of the recognised categories warranting interference, it would undoubtedly be competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. Examined in the light of the aforesaid settled principles, the present case does not satisfy any of the parameters enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) or Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) so as to justify the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, there is no material on record to prima facie demonstrate that the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide, frivolous, vexatious, or has been instituted with an GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:10:- ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting a fair and complete investigation. Consequently, the Court must be permitted to carry on trial proceedings to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, without unwarranted judicial interference at this nascent stage when trial Court is to consider about framing of charge. 9. A careful perusal of the final report submitted by the investigating agency reveals that the original RTI information allegedly received by the petitioner from the Public Information Officer was never produced before the investigating agency by the petitioner for the purpose of demonstrating that the document exhibited as Mark 'N' before the Civil Court was a true and faithful reproduction of the original RTI reply. Admittedly, the original RTI information is stated to have been received by the petitioner himself through the competent public authority. Consequently, whether the document tendered by the petitioner in the civil proceedings as Mark 'N' was an authentic and unaltered copy of the original RTI information or whether it had been manipulated or fabricated are disputed questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 9.1. The investigating agency, after conducting investigation, has returned a categorical finding in the final report that the petitioner, in conspiracy with his co-accused late Surjeet Kaur (since deceased), had allegedly forged the document in question and thereafter utilized the same during the civil proceedings with the intention of deriving an unlawful GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:11:- advantage. Whether the conclusions so recorded are ultimately sustainable in law or are liable to be dislodged by the defence is a matter that can only be determined upon a full-fledged trial after the parties have been afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value or correctness of the conclusions recorded by the investigating agency, particularly when the allegations disclose disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. 9.2. The conclusions recorded by the investigating agency in the final report are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- xxxx During verification perusal was made of suspicious RTI. That from the suspicious RTI it was found that in reply of suspicious RTI stamp of SPIO cum D.S.P. HQ. SIRSA is not affixed nor Serial number is written and nor there is stamp of the P.S. and after RTI Serial No. 1,2,3 in place of Serial No. 4, Serial No. 2 is given and during investigation not producing of reply of the original R.T.I. by accused Surjit Kaur and Ajaib Singh and from the statement of the R.T.I. clerk, from the statement of witnesses in this case the endorsement is found to be of the allegatons levelled in the first information report on then Moharrar P.S. Rania Head Contable Anil Kuamar. In this case the above accused Surjit Kaur and above Ajaib Singh have been found to be true accused. Now in this case there remains no completion investigation. So in this case evidence capable of challan has come out on the file of this case against accused Surjit Kaur and Ajaib Singh. Preparing challan against above accusd Surjeet Kaur and above Ajaib Singh it is being presented in the hon'ble court. xxxx GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:12:- 10. The controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the genuineness, authenticity and origin of the document produced as Mark 'N', as well as the extent of the petitioner's involvement, if any, in its alleged fabrication. Such issues cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), as their determination necessarily requires appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties during the course of trial. Death of one of accused during pendency of investigation and his name having been recorded in report under Section 193 BNSS is of no consequence as trial Court can consider abatement on proof of death of one of accused namely Surjit Kaur. There was no requirement of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to be instituted as offence of forgery was allegedly committed outside the Court and then only forged document was filed in the Court. 10.1. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice and is not designed to undertake a meticulous examination of disputed factual issues or to evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Once the allegations contained in the final report disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the issues raised are essentially triable in nature, this Court would be slow in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold. 10.2. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material collected during investigation and the nature of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43529-2026 (O&M) -:13:- controversy involved, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. It is, however, expressly clarified that the observations recorded herein are confined exclusively to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and have been made solely for the limited purpose of examining the legality of the prayer for quashing. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations, the probative value or admissibility of the evidence collected during investigation, or the respective rights and defences available to the parties. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter independently, objectively and strictly in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before it, without being influenced, directly or indirectly, by any observation recorded in the present order. 12. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary thereto, shall also stand disposed of. Since the principal lis has attained finality by virtue of the present judgment, the interlocutory proceedings no longer survive for independent consideration and are, accordingly, rendered infructuous. No separate or further orders are, therefore, called for in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 07.08.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document