Punjab-Haryana High Court
Praveen Chanda @ Pravin Chanda vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 August, 2026
CRM M-20834 of 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
131 CRM M-20834 of 2022
Date of Decision: 04.08.2026
Praveen Chanda @ Pravin Chanda ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate with
Mr. Anuj Bhargava
for the respondents No.2 and 3.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR No. 0427 dated
13.10.2019 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC read with Section
120-B IPC registered at Police Station DLF, Phase-I, Gurugram and
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of
the statement made by Radhika, wife of Sandip Tandon, respondent
No.2. She got the present FIR registered against Kshama Puri wife of
R.B. Puri, R.B. Puri and the present petitioner. She alleged that
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 2
Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri, both accused, met the complainant
through a property dealer, i.e., the present petitioner, and during
meeting, Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri, agreed to sell their house to the
complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores. Kshama Puri and
R.B. Puri told the complainant that there was an outstanding loan of
Rs. 69,53,241/- approximately on the said property which need to be
cleared before execution of the sale deed in favor of the complainant.
The complainant paid Rs. 3.60 lakhs each in favour of Kshama Puri
and R.B. Puri, and another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid on 14.02.2019
in cash to Kshama Puri. The respondent No.2/complainant also made
payment of Rs. 69,53,241/- in favour of the DHFC Limited by way of
demand draft in the loan account of the accused. It was further alleged
in the FIR that the sale deed was agreed to be executed by 30th April
2019. However, the accused did not turn up to get the sale deed
executed in favour of the complainant. Further, the complainant
appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the appointed day but the
accused had not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant,
and, thus, they had cheated the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the petitioner was neither the owner/seller of the house in
question, nor he had received the amount of Rs.77,53,241/-. The
entire amount was duly received by Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri, and
they had also signed the agreement to sell dated 13.02.2019, which
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 3
was executed in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The
petitioner had only signed the agreement to sell as a witness and was
not a beneficiary of the entire transaction. Ultimately, when the sale
deed was not executed by the accused, the complainant/respondent
No. 2, and Asha Tandon, respondent No.3 filed a civil suit for
possession by way of specific performance and permanent injunction
against Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri. Learned counsel further submits
that ultimately the complainant entered into a compromise dated
16.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) with Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri, main
accused. After the execution of the compromise, Varun Puri, legal
representative of Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri, had executed a sale
deed in favour of the complainant of the present case. Ultimately,
Varun Puri filed a petition, i.e., CRM-M-16775 of 2023, before this
Court with a prayer to quash the FIR against him on the basis of
compromise with the aggrieved person, i.e., present complainant in
the present case. The respondents No. 2 and 3/complainants, also
appeared in the said case, and the FIR already stands quashed against
Varun Puri, who is legal representative of Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri.
Thus, the continuation of the proceedings against the present
petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the present FIR is
ordered to be quashed by this Court, the petitioner will not initiate any
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 4
civil or criminal proceedings against respondents No.2 and 3 with
regard to the subject matter of the present FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 has opposed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. However, he could
not dispute the fact that the FIR has already been quashed qua Varun
Puri, who is the legal representative of Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri.
Even the complainants/respondents No. 2 and 3, have already settled
all their disputes with the principal accused in the present case. It is
also admitted fact that the petitioner was just a property dealer in the
entire deal and had not received any amount from the complainant of
the present case, and apart from that, he was a witness to the
agreement to sell only. Even learned counsel for the respondents No.
2 and 3 submits that at present no other civil or criminal proceedings
relating to the subject matter of the FIR are pending before any Court
of law, except the trial arising out of the FIR.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record carefully.
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 5
7. In the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and this Court, it has been held repeatedly while referring to the
provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. that nothing under the Code of
Criminal Procedure shall deem to limit or affect the inherent powers
of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M.P.
& others, 2003(3) SCC 11, has held as follows:-
“Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the
judgment and order dated January 16, 2002 of High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, by which three Petitions filed
by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were
dismissed.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Thereafter, the appellants filed three Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court for quashing of the FIR and the
proceedings of the case before the learned Magistrate.
After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the
investigation had not yet commenced in connection with
the FIRs which had been registered at the Police Station
and, therefore, the Petitions were pre-mature and
accordingly all the three Petitions were rejected.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 6The High Court has held that the Petitions filed by the
appellants for quashing the complaint and the FIRs
registered against them are pre-mature. The question
which arises is that where the complaint or the FIR does
not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, whether
the same can be quashed at the initial stage? This
question was examined by this Court in State of West
Bengal &Ors. V. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors., AIR 1982
Supreme Court 949 and it was held that the First
Information Report which does not allege or disclose that
the essential requirements of the penal provision are
prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or
constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is
surely not within the province of the police to investigate
into a Report (FIR) which does not disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and the code does
not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases. It
was further held that an investigation can be quashed if
no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. The same
question has been considered in State of Haryana &Ors.
V. Ch. Bhajan Lal &Ors. 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 383
(SC) and after considering all the earlier decisions, the
category of cases, in which the Court can exercise its
extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or to secure the ends of justice, were sumarised in
para 108 of the Report and sub- paras 1 to 3 thereof are
being reproduced hereinbelow :
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 7
“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.”
8. The said judgment by the Three Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had affirmatively held that where an FIR
does not disclose the essential requirements of the penal provision or
does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the same
can be quashed at the initial stage. Reference has also been made to
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “State of Haryana
and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 383),
in which, it was observed that the High Court can exercise its
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 either to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 8
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “R Kalyani vs.
Janak C. Mehta” reported as 2009 (1) SCC 516 has held as under:
“Leave granted.
2. Appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR)
against the respondents on or about 4.1.2003 under
Sections 409, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. First and second respondent approached the High
Court for an order for quashing of the said FIR as also
the investigation initiated pursuant thereto or in
furtherance thereof. The High Court allowed the said
proceedings by reason of the impugned order dated
29.4.2004.Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, would, in support of the appeal,
contend :
(1) The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
wholly illegally and without jurisdiction insofar as it
entered into the disputed questions of fact in regard to
the involvement of the respondents as the contents of the
first information report disclose an offence of cheating,
criminal breech of trust and forgery.
(2) While admittedly the investigation was not even
complete, the High Court could not have relied upon the
documents furnished by the defendants either for the
purpose of finding out absence of mens rea on the part of
the applicants or their involvement in the case.
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 9
(3) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being high ranking
officers of M/s. Shares and Securities Ltd., a company
dealing in shares, were vicariously liable for commission
of the offence being in day to day charge of the affairs
thereof.
(4) An offence of forgery being a serious one and in view
of the fact that the respondent No.2 forwarded a letter
purporting to authorise the accused No.3 to transfer
shares to the National Stock Exchange, he must be held
to have the requisite intention to commit the said offence
along with the respondent No.3.
(5) In any view of the matter, the respondent No. 3 being
not an applicant before the High Court, the entire
criminal prosecution could not have quashed by the High
Court.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
In Hamid v. Rashid alias Rasheed & Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC
474], this Court opined :
“6. We are in agreement with the contention advanced on
behalf of the complainant appellant. Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code saves the inherent powers of
the High Court and its language is quite explicit when it
says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A
procedural Code, however exhaustive, cannot expressly
provide for all time to come against all the cases orAMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 10points that may possibly arise, and in order that justice
may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must in
proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of
justice or for the purpose of carrying out the other
provisions of the Code. It is well established principle
that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito
justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone it exists or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
One of the paramount duties of the Superior Courts is to
see that a person who is apparently innocent is not
subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of
a false and wholly untenable complaint.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
A vicarious liability can be fastened only by reason of a
provision of a statute and not otherwise. For the said
purpose, a legal fiction has to be created. Even under a
special statute when the vicarious criminal liability is
fastened on a person on the premise that he was in-
charge of the affairs of the company and responsible to
it, all the ingredients laid down under the statute must be
fulfilled. A legal fiction must be confined to the object
and purport for which it has been created. In Sham
Sunder & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 630],
this Court held :
“9. But we are concerned with a criminal liability under
penal provision and not a civil” liability. The penal
provision must be strictly construed in the first place.
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 11
Secondly, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law
unless the statute takes that also within its fold. Section
10 does not provide for such liability. It does not make
all the partners liable for the offence whether they do
business or not.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
27. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being
vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the
company must be made an accused. In any event, it
would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised
both against the Company as well as the person
responsible for the acts of the Company.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
30. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned
observations.
10. From perusal of the above stated judgments, it is
apparent that the High Court cannot be a helpless spectator when it is
made out that the criminal prosecution was malafide and abuse of the
process of the court. The High Court has inherent powers and a
corresponding duty to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, it is
apparent that Kshama Puri and R.B. Puri had agreed to sell the
property in question to the complainant by way of an agreement dated
13.02.2019, and the petitioner had signed agreement to sell only as a
witness. It is also apparent that the petitioner had not received any
amount from respondents No. 2 and 3/complainants. Now, Kshama
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-20834 of 2022 12
Puri and R.B. Puri have already expired and their son/co-accused,
namely, Varun Puri, had already amicably resolved all their disputes
with the respondents No. 2 and 3. Even, the present FIR already
stands quashed against Varun Puri vide order dated 15.05.2023,
(Annexure P-5), passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Thus,
continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would
be an abuse of the process of the Court. Even otherwise, from the
contents of the FIR also, it is apparent that a simple dispute has been
converted into a criminal offence, which is otherwise impermissible
in law. Complainant cannot legally be permitted to convert a civil
dispute between the parties into a criminal prosecution to wreck
vengeance against the accused.
11. In view of above discussion, the present petition is
allowed and the FIR No. 0427 dated 13.10.2019 under Sections 406
and 420 of IPC read with Section 120-B IPC registered at Police
Station DLF, Phase-I, Gurugram and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner only.
12. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
04.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
