Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karandeep Singh Alias Karan vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 February, 2026
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(272) CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
Reserved on:17.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 19.02.2026
Date of Uploading : 20.02.2026
Karandeep Singh @ Karan ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Sourav Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for setting aside/quashing of FIR No.192 dated 12.12.2023 under Sections
379-B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Police
Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and challan/charge sheet
(Annexure P-2) presented without fair and proper investigation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned FIR
(Annexure P-1) came to be registered at the instance of Veerpal Singh @
Honey and reads as under:-
Statement of Veerpal Singh @ Honey s/o Late Taranjeet Singh
r/o Street No.1, Doctor Maini Street No.1, Hargobindpura,
Jagraon, presently r/o Street No.1, Kartar Colony, PS: Division1 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:42 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)::2::
NO.3, Ludhiana aged about 33 years, mobile no. 98774-45182.
Stated that I am resident of aforesaid address. I have been
learning the work of a mechanic at Rocky Motor near Kawality
Chowk, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana. On 11.12.2023 at about
7:50 PM I received a call from my wife Manpreet Kaur and I
came out of the shop for hearing the call and then I was holding
my mobile to my ear, the mobile of make Vivo of colour blue in
which SIM Car no. 76580-84734 was activated and the IMIE
No. is 867408040123579. Then in the meantime two young men
riding on Activa came from behind from side of Cheema Chowk,
out of them a boy riding pillion forcibly snatched my mobile
and fled away towards Mohalla Islamganj. I read the number of
Activa as PB 10 GQ 2870 and colour was brown. Till toady I
have been searching for them and I came to know that the
driver of the Activa is Deepak @ Rinku S/o Lakhpati R/o
Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana and the name of the boy
riding pillion is Karandeep @ Karan S/o Dharmender Singh
R/o Street No: 8, Mohalla Mad Colony, Shimlapuri. I can
identify when confronted. I was coming to you for giving
information. You have met, action be taken. Statement has been
recorded, heard and same is correct. Sd/- Veerpal Singh verified
by Balour Singh ASI, PS:Division no. 2, Ludhiana, dated
12.12.2023. Action of police: Today myself ASI alongwith HC
Talwinder Singh no 851, HC Harpreet Singh no 3483 on private
vehicle and were present near the cut of Labour Colony in
context of patrolling and search of suspicious persons, then
aforesaid Veerpal Singh @ Honey came to me and got his
statement recorded, after recording his statement and same was
read over to him, who after hearing, reading the statement and
admitting the same to be correct he signed under the same in
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)::3::
Punjabi. Which were verified by myself ASI. From the statement
of complainant prima facie offence U/s 379-B, 34 IPc is made
out, on which this statement is being sent to police station at the
hand of HC Harpreet Singh no 3483 for registration of FIR
against Deepak @ Rinku and Karandeep @ Karan.
3. During the course of the investigation, the report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented after which charges came to be framed and
now evidence is being recorded.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless. In fact, the
complainant-Veerpal Singh @ Honey spat upon the petitioner and when the
petitioner and Deepak objected to the same and asked him to be careful, then
instead of apologizing, the complainant abused, threatened and scuffled with
the petitioner and Deepak during which the screen of the mobile of the
complainant-Veerpal Singh @ Honey got damaged. The complainant got
furious and called his friends at the spot and broke/damaged the Activa
driven by Deepak. Thereafter, the petitioner was caught and taken away to
Rocky Motors Garage where the complainant was working and he
(petitioner) was beaten up and his mobile phone was snatched alongwith
cash of Rs.8500/-. He was taken to the police station where he was
threatened by ASI Balaur Singh to implicate him in false cases. No FIR was
registered at the instance of the petitioner who was kept in illegal custody. It
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::4::
is her contention that not only should the FIR (Annexure P-1) be quashed
but a de novo or re-investigation be ordered.
5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the version of the petitioner would be his defence at the stage of the
Trial which cannot be adjudicated upon during the course of summary
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS). In case, the petitioner
wanted further investigation/re-investigation, he could have approached the
Magistrate by way of an appropriate application. At this stage, when the
prosecution evidence is being recorded and only 04 prosecution witnesses
remain to be examined, the question of quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-1)
and the challan/charge sheet (Annexure P-2) does not arise.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The parameters of quashing of an FIR have been laid down in
the judgment of ‘State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992)
Supp (1) SCC 335′ and the same are reproduced as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chaper XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a serious 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 of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be excercised
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
4 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::5::
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 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 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.”
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::6::
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that
disputed questions of fact and the defence of an accused cannot be
considered to quash an FIR and/or the report under Section 193 of BNSS.
Such disputed questions of fact and the defence of an accused can only be
adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. The relevant judgments in
this regard are as under:-
In ‘Maksud Saiyed versus State of Gujarat & Ors. 2007(4)
RCR(Criminal) 406′, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
6. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a FIR in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is well known. The court may not enter into
determination of a disputed question of fact at that stage. It
may, however, take note of the allegations made in the
complaint petition vis-a-vis the conduct of the parties. It is not
disputed that the bank had filed an original application before
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. A civil suit was filed
at Vadodara in the year 2003. In the prospectus issued, it was
stated :
“Sr. Suit Date of Name of the Branch Amount claimed
No. details Filing party (Rs. in lacs)
4 DRT, A M/s. A.R.B. 993.74 The case is filed
‘bad Nagami A’bad against the Bank for
28.3.03 Nicotine non-submission of
Pvt. Ltd. export bills and non-
releasing of the
sanctioned limits. We
have taken plea that
since the borrower is
not clearing the dues
of the Bank, Bank
has not released the
export bills as per
procedure of UCPDC
6 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::7::
rules."
In ‘Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam versus State of A.P.
2009(2) RCR(Criminal) 860′, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
25. The High Court was justified in holding that disputed
questions of fact are involved and the application under section
482 of Code has been rightly rejected. We do not find any scope
for interference with the order of the High Court. However, we
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
In ‘Ashfaq Ahmed Qurereshi and another vesus Namrata
Chopra and others 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 528’, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the
property belonged not only to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, but
they were the owners alongwith respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The
respondent No. 3 has died and respondent No. 4 has been
deleted from the array of parties by this court earlier. There is
ample evidence on record that the permission had been sought
and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for raising
the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had
been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4
might have forged their signatures for the reason that it is not
their case in the counter affidavit or even before the High Court
that they had ever raised any objection or filed any complaint
before the police or any competent court for forging their
7 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::8::
signatures by someone else on the said application. More so,
there are disputes regarding partition and demarcation of
shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds are also
on record that their shares have been sold not only by
respondent Nos. 3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos. 1 & 2
subsequently and there is no land available today. No
explanation could be furnished by Mr. Prashant Kumar
appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why this fact had not
been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of
fact, we are of the considered opinion that there was no
occasion for the High Court to allow the petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings qua the said
respondents.
In ‘Rishipal Singh versus State of U.P. and another 2014(3)
RCR(Criminal) 637′, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological E. Ltd. and Others, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 122 :
2000 (3) SCC 269, has discussed at length about the scope and
ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be.
We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that
judgement, which reads:
“Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as
envisaged in section 482 of the Code to have the
complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception
rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial
stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to
scuttle the prosecution with the lodgement of First
Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth
the law takes it’s own course and the investigation
8 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::9::
ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The
jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it’s
undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In
the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the
complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations
levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it
does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there
ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the
expectation of the people and deal with the situations as
is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to
be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a
legal process and such an investigation ought not to be
allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the
concept of justice, which is paramount”.
12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the
guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this
Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under
Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or
the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.,
1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 60 : 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 160 :
1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 937 :
(2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
observed that:
“The power under section 482 of the Code should be used
sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court,
but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no
two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained
judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would
lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under
section 482 of the Code must be exercised and
proceedings must be quashed”. Also see Om Prakash and
9 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::10::
Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 662 :
2012(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 127 : 2012 (12)
SCC 72.
What emerges from the above judgments is that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests
to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the
case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the
complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether
continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage
of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that
quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the
Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the
complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but
it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into
the disputed questions of fact.
In ‘Tilly Gifford versus Michael Floyd Eshwar & Anr. 2018(1)
RCR (Criminal) 350′, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
4. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on
21.05.2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far
beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of
such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in
numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and
again, it has been emphasised by this Court that the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not permit the High
Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::11::
defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal
proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare.
Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by
clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law.
In ‘Ravi Karumabaiah versus State and Anr. 2015(37)
RCR(Criminal) 751′, the Delhi High Court held as under:-
19. As alleged by the petitioner, there are disputed questions of
facts which can be considered by learned Trial Court during
trial. The petitioner will get the liberty to defend his case, but at
this stage the trial cannot be stopped by quashing the
proceedings, as sought by petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner
has failed to establish any illegality or perversity in the orders
passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional
Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr P C of this Court.
In ‘Sumit Bansal versus M/s MGI Developers And Promoters
And Another 2026(1) RCR(Criminal) 419’, the Supreme Court held as
under:-
28. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment
requires the High Court to be more cautious and diligent. While
examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court exercising its
power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the
genuineness of the allegations made. The Court must only
consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed
against the accused or not.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::12::
34. Whether those cheques were issued as alternative or
supplementary instruments, or represented fresh undertakings,
is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence at the time of
trial and cannot be resolved at the threshold. Questions such as
whether the firm’s cheques were issued in substitution of the
personal cheques, whether the parties treated them as
alternative securities, and whether both were intended to be
simultaneously enforceable, are all mixed questions of fact. The
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.PC cannot be used to decide such disputed issues.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that an FIR
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom can be quashed where a
bare perusal of the FIR and the uncontroverted allegations do not constitute
an offence or where the allegations levelled are completely absurd and
improbable on the face of it. The defence of the accused and disputed
questions of fact cannot be examined in proceedings under the 482 Cr.P.C.
(528 of BNSS, 2023).
10. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the entire
contention of the petitioner amounts to setting up of his defence version and
asking this Court to adjudicate upon the prosecution version viz.-a-viz. the
defence version. The defence of an accused or disputed questions of facts
cannot be adjudicated upon in summary proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS). The same is the domain of the Trial Court.
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
CRM-M-19231-2024 (O & M)
::13::
11. As regards the prayer for further investigation/do novo
investigation, the petitioner ought to have approach the concerned
Magistrate/Trial Court with an appropriate application in that regard.
However, the Courts below have not been approached for reasons best
known to the petitioner.
12. The cumulative effect of the aforementioned discussion is that
the question of quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1), challan/charge sheet
(Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom does not
arise, moreso, in this situation when the prosecution evidence is being
recorded.
13. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
14. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
February 19, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 05:23:43 :::
