Rajesh Malik vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M)

Rajesh Malik . .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondent

Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 09.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 10.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sanya Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Jyuvraj Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate,
Mr. R. S. Bagga, Advocate and
Ms. Rishika, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant.



MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) seeking
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 2



quashing of FIR No.203 dated 27.05.2021, registered under Sections 406,
420, 467 and 471 of IPC at Police Station DLF, Phase I, District Gurugram.
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 filed by the complainant Gaurav Chaudhary, alleging
therein that Ved Prakash Malik and his wife Savitri Malik, who are parents of
the present petitioner, had purchased a plot bearing No. G-3/20, Phase-I, DLF
City, Gurugram vide a sale deed registered on 21.09.1994. On 05.09.2020,
the present petitioner approached the complainant and by representing that he
had become the sole owner of the aforementioned property on the basis of a
relinquishment deed executed by his sisters, Neeru Suri and Rashmi Khanna,
in his favour, he offered to sell the above-said property to the complainant. By
making false representations and inducement, he made the complainant
believe that the relinquishment deed was a genuine document and the
property stood in his name. Believing him, the complainant entered into an
agreement to purchase the aforementioned property for a sale consideration
amount of Rs. 5,55,11,000/-. He paid an amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- by way of
cash as well as cheques. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was
to be executed on or before 19.12.2020. Subsequently, on making inquiries,
the complainant came to know that the property in question was still standing
in the name of Ved Prakash Malik and also that the relinquishment deed
purported to be executed by the sisters of the petitioner was a false and forged
document. The sisters of the petitioner were contacted by the complainant,
who denied executing any such relinquishment deed. By alleging that the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 3



petitioner, with intent to cause wrongful loss to him and to cheat him, had
extracted money from him and had forged documents, the complainant prayed
for taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The petitioner was arrested and was subsequently extended the
benefit of bail. During investigation, offences under Section 406, 467 and 471
of IPC were deleted and challan against the petitioner was presented for
commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC only. Vide order
dated 07.03.2026, the learned trial Court has framed charge under Section 420
of IPC against the petitioner.
4. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he
has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the present FIR is the result of
a dispute arising out of an agreement to sell dated 05.09.2020 in respect of
Plot No. G-3/20, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurugram and the dispute is essentially
civil in nature. It is argued that the petitioner had entered into the agreement
to sell with respondent No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,55,11,000/- and
had received Rs.41,00,000/- as earnest money. The petitioner had agreed to
execute the sale deed on or before 19.12.2020, which was subsequently
extended up to 19.03.2021. The petitioner is the owner of the property and his
ownership is supported by the Will dated 16.12.2013 executed by his father,
the relinquishment deeds executed by his sisters on 04.08.2016 and the
subsequent correspondence of DLF confirming the petitioner's name in its
records. It is argued that the sisters had also executed fresh registered
relinquishment deeds dated 02.04.2021 as an additional precaution. It is
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 4



further argued that respondent No.2 himself failed to arrange the balance sale
consideration and, when the date for execution of the sale deed was
approaching, the petitioner issued legal notice dated 17.03.2021 calling upon
him to complete the transaction by 19.03.2021, failing which the agreement
would stand terminated. Respondent No.2 replied on 18.03.2021 claiming that
he was ready with the balance consideration but instead of completing the
transaction, raised a dispute regarding the petitioner's ownership.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no
forged document was ever produced by the petitioner before respondent No.2. It
is submitted that his two sisters had executed separate relinquishment deeds in
respect of two different properties and the same documents were produced
before the investigating officer along with the petitioner's detailed reply. Hence,
no offence under Section 420 of IPC was made out. It is argued that the
petitioner had supplied all relevant documents to the investigating agency and
had also produced the subsequent registered relinquishment deed dated
02.04.2021. The conduct of the police itself shows that the criminal proceedings
were being used to pressurise the petitioner. It is submitted that on 12.06.2021,
the petitioner was taken from his residence in Delhi to the police station and was
forced to sign a settlement in the presence of respondent No.2,
whereby the sale consideration was reduced from Rs.5,55,11,000/- to
Rs.4,26,97,200/- and the rate was reduced from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.85,000/- per
square yard. The petitioner thereafter made a complaint against the police
officials regarding the said incident. The registration of the FIR without a proper
preliminary enquiry was contrary to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly when the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 5



dispute arose from an agreement to sell and involved questions regarding title
and genuineness of documents. The authenticity of the relinquishment deeds
could easily have been verified from the petitioner's sisters before registration
of the FIR. The subsequent investigation itself has substantially weakened the
allegations in the FIR. It is submitted that the police took both relinquishment
deeds into possession and recorded the statements of the petitioner's sisters,
pursuant to which Sections 406, 467 and 471 IPC were deleted and the
challan was ultimately prepared only under Section 420 IPC. While
submitting that continuation of the criminal proceedings under the impugned
FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law, it is urged that the petition
deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR along with the subsequent
proceedings having emanated therefrom are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned
senior counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, has argued that the petition
deserves dismissal as the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a
cognizable offence and the investigation had already been completed. It is
argued that the complainant had approached the police with a specific
allegation that the petitioner represented himself to be the sole owner of the
property and relied upon relinquishment deeds executed by his sisters, on the
basis of which respondent No.2 was induced to enter into the agreement to
sell and pay Rs.41,00,000/-. The allegations cannot be brushed aside as a
mere civil dispute because the complaint specifically alleges use of forged
documents for inducing the complainant to part with his money. It is
submitted that the complainant subsequently made inquiries from the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 6



Municipal Corporation and from the petitioner's sisters and came to know that
the petitioner was not shown as the sole owner and that the sisters denied
execution of the relinquishment deed relied upon by him. The investigation
was conducted by the police by obtaining the relevant property records, the
complainant's bank account and the two cheques for Rs.9,00,000/- and
Rs.32,00,000/-, as well as the records from DLF. The petitioner was also
called to join the investigation. The allegations made by the petitioner
regarding the manner in which he was brought to the police station and made
to sign the settlement are false and baseless. It is further argued that during
investigation the petitioner's sisters appeared before the police and their
statements were recorded. The police took the relevant deeds into possession
and, on the basis of the investigation, Sections 406, 467 and 471 IPC were
deleted. The challan against the petitioner has been prepared and filed only
for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
7. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, while
assisting learned State counsel, argued that the petitioner had represented to
respondent No.2 that he was the sole owner of the property and had shown
him the relinquishment deeds executed by his sisters. It is submitted that
respondent No.2 paid Rs.41,00,000/- on the strength of those representations.
When respondent No.2 subsequently made inquiries, the sisters denied having
executed the deeds in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently
executed a settlement dated 14.06.2021, under which he agreed to execute the
sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 at the reduced rate of Rs.85,000/- per
square yard. It is argued that the petitioner himself admitted execution of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 7



settlement during the telephonic conversation dated 15.06.2021 and stated
that he was committed to the settlement. The subsequent allegation that the
settlement was obtained under pressure is an afterthought. With these
submissions, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
9. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and
ambit of the Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia
with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 8



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 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 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 9



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.”
10. 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 10



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-ordinary
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 Sharda 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 11



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.”
11. 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 or
the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482
of Cr.P.C.
12. 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.
13. In Neeharika Infrastructure vs. State of Maharashtra : 2021
SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Apex Court observed that the Courts ought to be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 12



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.
14. 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 processes 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 13



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 ).”
15. On applying the aforementioned principles of law to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the allegations in the
FIR, taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. The complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner
represented himself to be the sole owner of the property on the basis of
relinquishment deeds allegedly executed by his sisters and on the strength of
such representation, induced him to enter into the agreement to sell and pay
an amount of Rs.41,00,000/-. The defence of the petitioner that he was the
lawful owner of the property, that the relinquishment deeds were genuine and
that the dispute is purely civil in nature involves disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. It is also significant to note that the investigation has already
been completed and challan has been presented against the petitioner under
Section 420 IPC. The fact that Sections 406, 467 and 471 IPC were deleted
during investigation does not by itself demolish the allegation of cheating.
The rival claims regarding the genuineness of the relinquishment deeds, the
ownership of the property, the circumstances in which the agreement to sell
was executed and the subsequent settlement are matters which require
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27129-2021 (O&M) 14



appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. This Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial or test the
correctness of the defence set up by the petitioner.
17. The plea of the petitioner regarding the alleged pressure exerted
upon him for entering into the settlement, as well as his claim that respondent
No.2 had failed to arrange the balance sale consideration also raise disputed
questions which cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. In view of
the material available on record and the settled limitations on exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, no case for quashing of the FIR or the subsequent
proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
18. However, it is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the
same shall not be construed as expression of opinion by this Court on the
merits of the case.
09.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Waseem R. Waseem Waseem R. R. Ansari R. Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No


Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.10 09:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document