Ashish Kumar Alias Ashish Prajapat vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
306

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026

Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Prajapati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shivam Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Yajur Mago, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') for quashing of FIR No.60
dated 04.05.2024 registered under Sections 160, 307, 148, 149 and 201 of
IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Satnampura,
District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1), the final report dated 08.10.2024
(Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the petitioner.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the ruqa of ASI
Darshan Singh, who was present at Maheru Gate, Phagwara in connection
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 2

with blockade duty. As per the secret information received by him, on
04.05.2024 between 3:30 AM and 3:50 AM, J. Mani, the petitioner and
eleven other named persons, alongwith 25-30 other young men armed with
sharp edged weapons, were fighting and rioting near PG Paramount, Green
Valley, Maheru Road. J. Mani was armed with a pistol and fired several
shots. One of the shots hit Satyam @ Ranjit Singh Pawar (respondent No.2).
The petitioner was arrested on the same day. He was granted regular bail by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated
23.05.2024 (Annexure P-8).
3. During investigation, an inquiry was conducted by the
Superintendent of Police, Phagwara. As per his report, Arpit @ Boxer,
Parikshat Rana and Sarfaraz Ali Khawaja were not found involved and were
declared innocent, vide GD No.039 dated 26.09.2024. The same report found
the petitioner and the remaining persons to be rightfully accused. Yasin
Choudhary and Aman were later declared innocent, vide GD No.023 dated
28.09.2024 (Annexure P-3). Section 201 IPC was added vide report No.18
dated 29.09.2024. The final report was presented against the petitioner,
Adarsh Tripathi, Gaurav Gautam, Yash Rathi, J. Mani Ratram and Kuldeep
Dagar. Respondent No.2, Megh Raj @ Meghu and Mohammad Abubakar
have been shown in the final report as accused yet to be arrested. Charges
have not been framed so far.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that no
overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The firearm injury is attributed
only to co-accused J. Mani, who admitted the firing in his disclosure
statement (Annexure P-4), and nothing has been recovered from the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 3

petitioner. The petitioner was residing in a nearby PG and was merely a
bystander. He rather arranged a vehicle and took the injured to the hospital.
This is supported by the statement of Ayush Chaudhary (Annexure P-5), a
student residing in the same locality and by the affidavit of the
injured/respondent No. 2 himself (Annexure P-7). The CCTV footage also
does not show the petitioner taking part in the fight. Five co-accused standing
on the same footing have been declared innocent and the continued
prosecution of the petitioner alone is discriminatory. It is further argued that
mere presence at the spot does not make a person a member of an unlawful
assembly and the mere invocation of Section 307 IPC does not bar the
exercise of the power of quashing. The petitioner is a Ph.D. scholar with no
criminal antecedents and continuation of the proceedings would ruin his
career. To buttress his arguments, learned senior counsel has relied upon the
authorities cited as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ,
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , Zainul v. State of
Bihar, 2025 INSC 1192 , Kuldip Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324 ,
Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 257 , Naushey Ali v. State
of U.P., 2025 INSC 182 and Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme
Court of India, judgment dated 11.08.2026) .
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to the reply
filed on his behalf (Annexure R-2/1). It is stated therein that the petitioner
neither caused any injury to respondent No.2 nor took part in any violence,
and he rather helped in taking him to the hospital. As per respondent No.2,
the investigating agency did not record his statement despite his repeated
requests. He has no objection to the quashing of the FIR qua the petitioner
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 4

and is ready to make a statement before the investigating agency or the Court.
His stand is confined to the role of the petitioner alone.
6. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned
State counsel has opposed the petition by arguing that the petitioner has been
sent up for trial on the basis of the material collected during investigation.
The allegations against him and the role attributed to each accused are
matters to be considered by the learned trial Court on the basis of the
evidence. Respondent No. 2 himself is an accused in the same FIR. His
statement cannot be relied upon for quashing of the FIR at this stage. Hence,
it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
8. 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
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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 5

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 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 6

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.”
9. Reference can also be made to Rajiv Thapar's case (supra),
wherein the test to be applied was laid down where an accused seeks
quashing on the strength of material produced by him. As per the said
judgment, such material must be of sterling and impeccable quality which
cannot be justifiably refuted, and it must persuade a reasonable person to
reject the accusation as false without recording any evidence. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court delineated the following steps:-
“(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality ?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 7

charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such,
that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is
in the affirmative , judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in
exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C."
10. Examined on the aforementioned touchstone, the material relied
upon by the petitioner does not satisfy even the first step. The petitioner is
named in the FIR as one of the persons who were fighting at the spot. The
inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police specifically found him to
be rightfully accused, and he has been sent up for trial accordingly.
11. The main plank of the petition is the affidavit and reply of
respondent No.2. This material cannot be treated as material of sterling
quality. Respondent No.2 is not merely the injured in this case. He is himself
named as an accused in the same FIR. As per the final report, he left the
hospital without getting his statement recorded and he is yet to be arrested.
His affidavit is couched in general terms. It does not disclose the manner of
the occurrence or the place where the petitioner was present at that time. His
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 8

grievance about non-recording of his statement does not sit well with his own
conduct of not joining the investigation. The worth of such an affidavit can be
tested only by cross-examination during trial. If respondent No.2 wishes to
support the petitioner, he can do so at the trial in accordance with law.
12. The statement of Ayush Chaudhary (Annexure P-5) also does
not help the petitioner. It is not a statement recorded by the investigating
agency and it was annexed by the petitioner with his own representation to
the police. Rather, Ayush Chaudhary states in it that the petitioner was
present at the spot among the boys who were watching the fight. This runs
contrary to the plea taken in the petition that the petitioner was not present at
the spot of the altercation. Similarly, the bail order (Annexure P-8) only
records the averments made by the applicants. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge observed in the same order that the allegations are a matter of
trial. That order cannot be read as a finding on the innocence of the petitioner.
The CCTV footage is a part of the record of investigation, and its effect can
be seen only during trial.
13. The plea of parity is also without merit. The co-accused who
were declared innocent were found by the police not to be involved in the
fight. The same inquiry found the petitioner to be rightfully accused. The
opinion of the police about the co-accused is not binding upon the learned
trial Court, and it gives no right to the petitioner to seek quashing of the
proceedings against himself.
14. Whether the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly
sharing its common object, or was a mere bystander, is a pure question of
fact. It can be decided only on the basis of the evidence led during trial. The
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 9

judgments in Zainul's case (supra) , Kuldip Yadav's case (supra) and
Ramachandran's case (supra) were rendered in appeals against conviction,
after appreciation of the evidence led at the trial. These judgments do not help
the petitioner at a stage when even the charges have not been framed.
15. Reliance upon Naushey Ali's case (supra) is also misplaced. In
that case, the proceedings were quashed on the basis of a settlement between
the parties. The injury was a fracture of the finger, and the police had found
the case to be false in its final report. In the present case, there is no
settlement between the parties. Respondent No.2 sustained a firearm injury
with entry and exit wounds, as per the medico-legal report (Annexure P-6).
The occurrence involved the firing of several shots and rioting by a large
number of armed young men in a students' locality. In Naushey Ali's case
(supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the following principle laid
down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 :-
"15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms
Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual alone,
and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence
under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not
rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under
this provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 10

there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to
framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature
of weapons used, etc. "
16. As stated by learned senior counsel himself, the judgment in
Rahul's case (supra) reaffirms the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar's case
(supra) . That test has already been applied above, and it is not satisfied in the
present case.
17. The remaining pleas of the petitioner include the plea that no
weapon was recovered from him. He has also pleaded that the offences under
the Arms Act and Section 201 IPC are not made out against him. These pleas
can be raised before the learned trial Court at the stage of framing of charge.
Since the charges have not yet been framed, an efficacious remedy is
available to the petitioner before the learned trial Court.
18. Respondent No.2 has expressed his willingness to have his
statement recorded by the investigating agency. He shall be at liberty to join
the investigation for this purpose. In case he does so, the investigating agency
shall record his statement and take further action in accordance with law.
19. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out for
quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
20. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas
available to him before the learned trial Court at the stage of framing of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53925-2026 (O&M) 11

charge. The learned trial Court shall decide the same on their own merits,
uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.
21. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
04.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document