Balvir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 137 )
CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
BALVIR SINGH AND OTHERS
… Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Abhinandan Sekhri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding
to Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the impugned order dated
21.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned JMIC, Batala, whereby
charges have been framed against the petitioners, as well as FIR No.21
dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 319, 318(4), 338, 339,
341 and 61 BNS, at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, Police District
Batala, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief factual matrix is that respondent No.2 had cordial
and longstanding family relations with the petitioners and would
frequently visit their residence. Being a permanent resident of Italy,
Respondent No.2 allegedly induced the petitioners, through persuasive
representations, to part with a substantial amount of 8 lakhs on the ₹
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 2 :-
assurance that he would facilitate the travel and settlement of their son
abroad. Upon the petitioners raising a grievance regarding the alleged
failure to honour the said assurance and demanding return of the amount,
Respondent No.2 is stated to have instituted the present FIR, which,
according to the petitioners, is false, frivolous and actuated by an ulterior
motive to evade his own liability.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal
of the true translated contents of the FIR itself reveals that respondent
No.2/complainant is neither shown to be residing at the address mentioned
therein nor alleged to have ever been in possession of the property in
question. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is a permanent
resident of Italy, where he resides with his family, and has falsely
implicated the petitioners with an ulterior motive to shield himself from
the consequences of his own conduct. According to learned counsel,
respondent No.2 had already obtained a substantial amount of 8 lakhs
₹
from the petitioners on the pretext of facilitating the travel and settlement
of their son abroad and, upon the petitioners raising a grievance in that
regard, resorted to the present criminal proceedings as a means of
harassment and coercion.
3.1. It is further contended that the petitioners neither committed
any fraud upon nor cheated respondent No.2 and that their role was
confined to purchasing the property in question. Learned counsel places
reliance upon various documents pertaining to petitioner No.1, wherein his
name as well as his father’s name are consistently recorded and
correspond with the particulars mentioned in the FIR. These documents,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 3 :-
according to learned counsel, materially belie the allegations levelled
against the petitioners and demonstrate the absence of the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. Continuation of the criminal
proceedings, in such circumstances, is asserted to be an abuse of the
process of law.
3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating agency,
without conducting a fair, impartial and meaningful investigation,
presented the challan dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) before the learned
Trial Court. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 21.04.2026, the learned
JMIC, Batala proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners, allegedly
on the basis of conjectures and surmises, despite the absence of material
disclosing the requisite ingredients of the alleged offences. It is,
accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned
order dated 21.04.2026, along with the FIR and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab and
vehemently opposes the present petition. Learned State counsel submits
that the allegations contained in the FIR, when read in their entirety, prima
facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore,
warrant a fair, effective and comprehensive investigation in accordance
with law. It is contended that, at this nascent stage, the extraordinary and
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ought not to be invoked in a manner that
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 4 :-
would truncate, stifle or foreclose a legitimate investigation, particularly
when the disputed factual assertions and the evidentiary substratum
underlying the allegations are yet to be fully investigated and tested.
Learned State counsel accordingly submits that no exceptional
circumstance warranting interference in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court has been made out and prays for dismissal of the
petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and, with their able assistance, have meticulously examined the
pleadings, the material placed on record and the documents relevant to the
controversy.
6.1. Upon a holistic and conjoint consideration of the allegations
contained in the FIR and the material collected during the course of
investigation, this Court is of the considered prima facie view that the
impugned FIR cannot be characterised as being devoid of allegations
disclosing the commission of cognizable offences. The allegations, if taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety at this stage, cannot be
said to be inherently incapable of constituting the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged. Equally, the case does not fall within the category of
allegations which are so patently absurd, inherently improbable,
manifestly frivolous or ex facie devoid of credibility as would justify the
invocation of the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
interdict the criminal process at its threshold. The disputed questions of
fact and the evidentiary aspects sought to be canvassed by the petitioners
necessarily require appropriate investigation and, if warranted,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 5 :-
adjudication in accordance with law; they cannot, at this stage, furnish a
legitimate basis for scuttling the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6.2. The present case, therefore, does not fall within any of the
well-recognised categories in which the inherent jurisdiction may
legitimately be invoked to interdict or quash criminal proceedings. The
disputed factual assertions, the evidentiary worth of the material collected
during investigation and the respective defences of the parties are matters
which require appropriate examination in accordance with law and cannot
be subjected to a meticulous adjudication in proceedings invoking inherent
jurisdiction. The parameters governing such jurisdiction stand
authoritatively delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1991 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 . The present case, upon an application of the said
principles, does not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting
interference by this Court. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereunder:-
“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series 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
exercised 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 6 :-
channelised and inflexible 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 F.I.R. 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 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.
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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 7 :-
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.
108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
7. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the scope and ambit of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court held that the power to
quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is to be
exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in exceptional
cases, the expression " rarest of rare " being employed in a context distinct
from that governing the imposition of capital punishment.
7.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 8 :-
proceedings, the High Court is not expected to enter into disputed
questions of fact or adjudicate upon the correctness, reliability or
genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR or complaint. At such
stage, the Court cannot examine the defence available to the accused,
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial.
Interference would be justified only where the case unmistakably falls
within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan
Lal (supra).
8. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the
present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down in
Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra) or M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
so as to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of
this Court. At this stage, there is no material to prima facie indicate that
the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide , frivolous, vexatious, or actuated
by an ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law. On the
contrary, the allegations contained therein disclose the commission of
cognizable offences, thereby necessitating a fair, impartial and complete
investigation. Judicial interdiction at this incipient stage would, therefore,
be wholly unwarranted.
9. Upon a careful and holistic consideration of the allegations
contained in the FIR, the impugned order and the material presently
available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case, in
substance, is founded upon the allegation that the ‘ petitioner No.1’
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 9 :-
impersonated the complainant by representing his father’s name as “Surta
Singh” in the sale deeds, whereas the petitioner’s actual father is stated to
be “Mullakh Raj”, and thereby facilitated execution of the sale deeds in
respect of the complainant’s property. The petitioner No.1 , on the other
hand, disputes the very foundational assertion regarding the identity of his
father and contends that his father’s name is also “Surta Singh”. The
question as to the actual identity of the petitioner’s father, the
circumstances in which the particulars came to be incorporated in the sale
deeds, and whether the petitioners intentionally impersonated the
complainant are essentially disputed questions of fact requiring
examination of the relevant oral and documentary evidence.
9.1. The aforesaid controversy cannot be conclusively determined
merely by undertaking a comparative or selective examination of the
documents relied upon by the respective parties. Determination of the
authenticity and evidentiary significance of the documents, the correctness
of the particulars recorded therein, the identity of the persons involved in
the execution of the sale deeds and the alleged element of impersonation
would necessarily entail appreciation of evidence and examination of the
surrounding circumstances. Such an exercise falls outside the permissible
contours of the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9.2. At the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court is
required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of the
alleged offences. The Court cannot embark upon a meticulous evaluation
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 10 :-
of disputed documents, determine the veracity of competing factual
narratives or undertake a mini-trial for the purpose of adjudicating the
defence set up by the petitioner. Where the factual foundation of the
prosecution case cannot be said to be ex facie absurd, inherently
improbable or wholly devoid of evidentiary basis, interference at the
threshold would be unwarranted.
9.3. The plea that the petitioner No.1’s father and the
complainant’s father were both named “Surta Singh” constitutes the very
factual controversy upon which the petitioner seeks to build his defence.
Whether such assertion is factually correct, whether the particulars
mentioned in the sale deeds were deliberately furnished with an intent to
impersonate the complainant, and whether the petitioners had any culpable
role in the alleged transaction are matters which require determination on
the basis of evidence. These disputed questions cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
9.4. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is undoubtedly wide, but its exercise is
circumscribed by the requirement of judicial restraint and is warranted
only in cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail
to disclose any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would
result in a manifest abuse of the process of law. The present case does not
fall within any such exceptional category. The allegations against the
petitioner cannot, at this stage, be characterised as inherently improbable,
patently absurd or bereft of an evidentiary foundation so as to justify their
interdiction at the threshold.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42414-2026 (O&M)
-: 11 :-
9.5. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. The
petitioners have failed to demonstrate either the complete absence of the
foundational ingredients of the alleged offences or any circumstance
constituting a manifest abuse of the process of law. The present petition,
therefore, does not merit acceptance and is accordingly dismissed .
10. It is clarified that the observations recorded herein are
confined strictly to the adjudication of the present petition under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall not be
construed as an expression of any final opinion on the truthfulness of the
allegations, the disputed identity particulars, the authenticity or evidentiary
worth of the documents, or the culpability of the petitioner. The
Investigating Agency and, where applicable, the learned Trial Court shall
examine the matter independently and proceed strictly in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order.
11. In view of the final adjudication of the principal proceedings,
all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, as well as all ancillary or
interconnected applications arising therefrom, shall stand disposed of
accordingly. No separate orders are warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
02.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document