Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitesh Mittal & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 17 February, 2026
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
120 CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 17.02.2026
Nitesh Mittal & Ors.
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Anr.
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter being referred to as
‘CrPC‘, has been invoked for quashing of summoning order dated
31.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, and also the Complaint
No.12 dated 13.10.2015 titled as ‘Nitesh Mittal Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.‘,
filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the
respondent No.2/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’
only, has filed a complaint against the petitioners/accused only. It has been
alleged in the abovementioned complaint that on 27.09.2015 at about 07:00
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:53 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
2
P.M. the complainant along with his brother was going in his car and near
village Balwar Kalan the petitioners who were travelling in a Ford Figgo car,
being driven by petitioner No.1, stopped the car of the complainant.
According to respondent No.2, the petitioner No.1 was armed with a steel
rod, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with wooden handles and petitioner No.4 with a
gandasa (chopper). According to respondent No.2, they all launched an
attack upon him with their respective weapons, inflicted multiple injuries on
his person and also damaged the mirror of the car.
3. The record further reveals that on filing of abovementioned
complaint, the respondent No.2 was called upon by the learned trial Court to
lead preliminary evidence and on appreciation of preliminary evidence vide
order dated 03.08.2015, the petitioners were summoned as accused. The
abovementioned summoning order, viz-a-viz complaint, have been sought to
be quashed by the petitioners.
4. Heard.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that an
altogether false and imaginary story has been cooked-up by the respondent
No.2 and that without application of judicial mind, and without proper
appreciation of preliminary evidence, the summoning order against the
petitioners has been passed. According to learned counsel for the petitioners,
the falsity of the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 can be gazed
from the fact that in the complaint, the respondent No.2 had levelled
allegations for the commission of offence under Sections
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
3
307/341/323/427/506 and 34 of IPC, but the learned trial Court has
summoned the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC only.
6. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that to support the abovementioned allegations except the bare
testimony of the complainant, there is no other supportive evidence and that
even the medico-legal report of the injures has not been proved before the
learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the
abovementioned discussed deficiency the learned trial Court, unmindful of
all the abovementioned requirements, has summoned the petitioners as an
accused.
7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
also contended that in the present case, another relevant aspect to be taken
into consideration is that with regard to same incident, the petitioners, too,
had filed a complaint, and that the abovementioned complaint has already
been decided by the learned trial Court, which has unfortunately ended-up
into acquittal of the accused, and that the respondent No.2 has challenged
the same in an appeal, which is under consideration.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
contended that all the pleas raised by the petitioners in the present petition
can be appreciated by analyzing the evidence to be led during the course of
trial only, and therefore, on the basis of grounds taken in the present petition,
any case for quashing of complaint, viz-a-viz summoning order, is not made
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
4
out. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2
that in the present case, the only plea raised by the petitioners is that they
have been falsely implicated in the present case and without corroboration
by independent evidence for the summoning order against the accused, only
prima facie case has to be seen by the learned trial Court. As per learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 at the abovesaid stage it is not expected
from the respondent No.2 to prove his allegations beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubts. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 that on the basis of contents of the complaint, the essential
ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Sections 341/323
IPC are made out, and therefore, no ground for quashing of complaint is
made out.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court to exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction, the guiding principles have been laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others‘ 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Those
guidelines prescribe that:
“a) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare
cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
b) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
5reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
c) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
d) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
e) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
f) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
whims or caprice;
g) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
h) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard
being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down
by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has
the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
i) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused and the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR;
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
6
j) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High
Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim
order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an
interim order should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the
entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the
High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim
order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and
the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The
High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the
order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during
the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or
till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173
Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India;”
11. In addition to above, in the case of ‘State of Haryana Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal‘, 1991(1) RCR 383, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after
reviewing large number of cases on the question of quashing of FIR has
propounded that the complaint can be quashed in the following
circumstances:-
a) 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 any6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
7offence or make out a case against the accused.
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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.
12. In the light of abovementioned settled principles of law if the
factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that in the present
case, the petitioners have simply come forward with a plea that a false story
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
CRM-M-15592-2016 (O&M)
8
has been cooked-up by the respondent No.2 and the abovementioned false
story without the support of any preliminary evidence has been believed by
the learned trial Court. However, with regard to abovementioned averments,
the most relevant fact to be taken into consideration is the preliminary
evidence led by the respondent No.2 before the learned trial Court.
13. A perusal of record further shows that the preliminary evidence
led by the respondent No.2 is thoroughly supportive to the contents of the
complaint and once the summoning of petitioners is for the commission of
offence under Sections 341/323/34 of IPC only, there is no requirement of
medico-legal report of the injured. At this stage, once on the basis of
contents of the complaint, the essential ingredients meant for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/341/34 IPC are made
out and in support of contents of the complaint, there are testimonies of
complainant and other witnesses, it is hereby held that at this stage, no
ground for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of
complaint is made out.
14. Thus, it is hereby held that present petition is devoid of merits
and deserved dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
17.02.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 02:27:54 :::
