Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh Alias Manna And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 July, 2026
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
134
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.07.2026
Mandeep Singh @ Manna and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of FIR
No.0284 dated 25.10.2022, registered under Sections 447 and 34 of IPC
(Sections 379 and 427 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Jandiala,
District Amritsar (Rural), along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the present petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
written complaint submitted by complainant Kuldeep Singh alleging therein
that he was the owner/in possession of agricultural land situated in village
Akalgarh Dhapyian, Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, where he was
engaged in dairy farming and had sown wheat crop over 08 acres of land,
which had become fully ripe and was to be harvested within the next 1-2
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -2-
days. It was further alleged that on 15.04.2022 at about 2:00 p.m., the
complainant received information that Mandeep Singh, Prabhsimran Singh
(both sons of Hardev Singh), their helper Gaji (Ganji) and some unidentified
associates, who allegedly had no concern with the aforesaid land, had
forcibly entered into the complainant’s land. Upon reaching the spot along
with his family members, the complainant found that the accused persons,
accompanied by some armed associates, had trespassed into the land and had
harvested approximately 03 acres of wheat crop with the help of a combine
harvester, loaded the harvested crop into tractor-trolleys and removed the
same, besides causing damage to the remaining standing wheat crop. It was
further alleged that when the complainant attempted to stop the accused
persons, petitioner Mandeep Singh and Prabhsimran Singh brandished
pistols, while their helper Gaji (petitioner No. 2) was armed with a datar and
the remaining companions were also carrying weapons. The accused persons
allegedly threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences,
stating that anyone who intervened would be shot dead. They further
threatened that they would not only take possession of the land but would
also cause harm to the lives and property of the complainant and implicate
him in false criminal cases. The complainant alleged that by harvesting and
removing the wheat crop from 03 acres and damaging the remaining crop,
the accused persons caused him a loss of approximately Rs.4-5 lakhs. After
registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused
were granted concession of bail. After completion of necessary investigation
and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -3-
petitioners are facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. The present FIR is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in
nature concerning ownership, mutation and possession of the land in
question. It is argued that petitioner No.1 is a co-owner and is in possession
of the disputed land by virtue of inheritance and a Will dated 22.04.2020,
and his title has been recognized in mutation proceedings as well as by the
revenue authorities. It is argued that several civil and revenue proceedings
between the parties are already pending, and therefore, the police could not
have adjudicated the question of title and possession by registering the
present FIR. It is further argued that a co-owner cannot be prosecuted for
offences of criminal trespass or theft in respect of his own property.
According to the petitioners, the addition of Sections 379 and 427 IPC vide
DDR No.21 dated 22.06.2023 is wholly unjustified and has been made only
to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.
4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Amritsar, by order dated 24.05.2022,
and the Civil Court, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 31.01.2023, recognized the petitioner as owner/co-
owner in possession of the disputed land. Despite being aware of these
orders, the police proceeded to register the FIR. The petitioners have been
falsely implicated due to the influence of the complainant and in order to
pressurize them to surrender the disputed property. Reliance is placed upon
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -4-
the inquiry report dated 30.06.2022, which acknowledged the pendency of
civil and revenue litigation and the orders passed therein. It is, thus, prayed
that the FIR, being a misuse of the criminal process deserves to be quashed.
5. On the other hands, learned State counsel has argued the
allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable
offences and, therefore, the registration of the FIR was fully justified. It is
contended that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioners,
along with their associates, forcibly entered the land in question, harvested
and removed the standing wheat crop, caused damage to the remaining crop
and extended threats while being armed with deadly weapons. These
allegations, on their face, prima facie constitute the offences alleged against
the petitioners. The petitioners’ plea of ownership, co-ownership and
possession raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such issues require appreciation of
evidence and are matters to be determined during the course of trial. Learned
State counsel points out that the matter has already progressed substantially
and charges have been framed by the learned trial Court on 15.07.2026.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings have entered the stage of trial and the
petitioners may raise all their permissible defences before the trial Court. In
these circumstances, no ground is made out for exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR or the consequential proceedings.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -5-
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
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 notMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -6-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
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 andMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -7-
personal grudge.”
8. 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
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-ordinaryMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -8-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
appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considered.”
9. 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -9-
or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 processesMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -10-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).”
13. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made
out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS for
quashing the impugned FIR or the consequential proceedings. A plain
reading of the allegations levelled in the FIR prima facie discloses the
commission of cognizable offences. The complainant has specifically
alleged that the petitioners, along with their associates, forcibly entered the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -11-
disputed land, harvested and removed standing wheat crop, caused damage
to the remaining crop and threatened the complainant and his family while
being armed with deadly weapons. Whether these allegations are ultimately
proved or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial on
the basis of evidence led by the parties and cannot be gone into in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The principal contention raised by
the petitioners is that they are co-owners of the land in dispute and that the
controversy is essentially civil in nature. However, the plea of ownership,
co-ownership, possession and the effect of the orders passed by the civil and
revenue authorities involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be
conclusively determined in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The defence
sought to be projected by the petitioners cannot be examined at this stage, as
doing so would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in
law.
14. Merely because civil and revenue proceedings are pending
between the parties does not render the criminal proceedings liable to be
quashed where the allegations in the FIR independently disclose the
ingredients of cognizable offences. The existence of a civil dispute is not an
absolute bar to criminal prosecution if the factual allegations also disclose
criminality. It is also significant to note that investigation in the present case
stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the
competent Court and charges have been framed on 15.07.2026. Thus, the
criminal proceedings have progressed to the stage of trial, where the
petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to raise all their permissible
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-32301-2024 (O&M) -12-
pleas and lead evidence in support of their defence. Interference by this
Court at this stage would not be justified.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
present case does not fall within any of the categories carved out by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) warranting exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, finding no
merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
16. Needless to observe that anything stated herein is only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case pending before the learned trial Court,
which shall proceed independently in accordance with law.
17. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.27 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
