CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 06.08.2026

Pronounced on : 14.09.2026

ASI Kuldeep

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by : Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J.

This is a petition, under Section 528 of ‘Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. The

extraordinary jurisdiction, vested in this Court by virtue of abovementioned

provision, has been invoked for quashing of complaint bearing No.COMI-

45-2025 titled as ‘Sh. Mayank Gupta, JMIC, Charkhi Dadri V/s ASI

Kuldeep’.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that a truck

bearing registration No.CH01-TB-5008 loaded with stone slates, met with an

accident on National Highway 152-D, within the jurisdiction of Police

Station Bond Kalan. The abovementioned accident took place when the

abovementioned truck dashed into a stationary vehicle and driver of the

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

2

abovementioned truck, bearing registration No.CH01-TB-5008, namely

‘Ram Kumar Sahu’, died on the spot. With regard to abovementioned

accident, FIR No.47 dated 02.04.2024 was registered in Police Station Bond

Kalan.

3. During the course of investigation of abovementioned case, the

truck bearing registration No.CH01-TB-5008 was seized by the

Investigating Officer along with loaded stone slates. For the release of stone

slates, an application was filed by the owner of abovementioned goods,

namely ‘Jatin’, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

Charkhi Dadri. The abovementioned Court issued a direction for the release

of abovementioned goods. With regard to above, vide despatch No.189

dated 18.04.2024, a written order was communicated to the police station,

and in compliance of abovementioned order, on furnishing of requisite

bonds, the goods were released in favour of above-named owner.

4. Subsequent thereto, i.e. on 24.04.2024, another order was

received in Police Station Charkhi Dadri, bearing despatch No.200 dated

24.04.2024. By virtue of abovementioned order, a direction was given to the

SHO concerned to release the vehicle in question. However, there was no

signature of the Presiding Officer of the Court, on the abovementioned

order. In fact, in place of signatures, word ‘Sd/-’ was mentioned. During the

course of investigation, the accused could not be traced and the investigation

could not reach to a logical end. In the abovesaid circumstances, an untrace

report was submitted before the learned Jurisdiction Magistrate.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

3

5. While dealing with the abovementioned untrace report, the

Court of learned Jurisdiction Magistrate, vide order dated 17.08.2024,

recorded that ‘EHC Sumer Sumer’ Belt No.169, Store Keeper (Malkhana

Mohrer), Police Station Bond Kalan had appeared before the Court and

submitted some disturbing facts. As recorded in the abovementioned order, a

written complaint was also submitted in the Court, revealing therein that

without any order of the Court the truck bearing registration No.CH01-TB-

5008 had been released on superdari in illegal manner.

6. In the backdrop of abovementioned information, in the order

dated 17.08.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Charkhi Dadri

recorded following observations:-

‘This court is surprised by said facts and deems it appropriate

to direct the SHO Police Station, City Dadri for carrying out

detailed investigation in accordance with the provisions of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by treating the

application given by EHC Sumer Singh to this Court as a

complaint and basis for registration of appropriate proceedings

with due intimation to this court. He is further directed to

submit weekly status reports to this court. Copy of complaint

given by EHC Sumer Singh is attached for information and

necessary action. Now, to come up on 23

rd

August 2024 for

compliance.’

In response to abovementioned order, the FIR No.238 dated

18.09.2024 was lodged in Police Station Charkhi Dadri.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

4

7. Since the matter pertained to the proceedings of the Court, i.e.

creating of false order with regard to release of truck, the Court monitored

the investigation. During the course of monitoring, repeated directions were

issued on various occasions, sometimes in the case pertaining to FIR No.47

dated 02.04.2024 Police Station Bond Kalan and sometimes in the case of

FIR No.238 dated 18.09.2024 Police Station Charkhi Dadri. However, fed

up with the inaction on the part of Investigating Officer in the case

pertaining to FIR No.238 dated 18.09.2024 Police Station Charkhi Dadri, on

02.07.2025 a complaint was submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class Charkhi Dadri in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Charkhi Dadri. The abovementioned complaint is reproduced as under:-

‘That ASI Kuldeep, Police Station City Dadri, has remained as

the Investigating Officer in FIR bearing No.238 dated

18.09.2024 registered as P.S. City Dadri, District Charkhi

Dadri. The said FIR pertains to serious allegations of fraud,

cheating and forgery committed by some public officials

pertaining to documents of this Court including a judicial

order. Vide order dated 10.10.2024, one last opportunity: was

granted to the Investigating Officer for carrying fruitful

investigation as the matter was pending, since long and the

gravity of the allegations were also serious. However, after

10.10.2024 despite multiple opportunities on 18.10.2024,

20.11.2024, 26.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 03.01.2025, 18.01.2025,

19.02.2025, 01.03.2025; 28.03.2025, 19.04.2025, 22.04.2025,

29.04.2025, no effective investigation has been carried by the

investigating officer ASI Kuldeep.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

5

On 29.04.2025, a judicial order was passed against him and 20

days were granted to him for completing the investigation and

for filing final police report in the said FIR. However, ASI

Kuldeep in the most cavalier manner had failed to even appear

before the Court on 23.05.2025 and accordingly, Court notices

were issued to the Superintendent of Police, Charkhi Dadri and

Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri. Today, ASI Kuldeep has

appeared and has again narrated the same casual attitude by

stating that required documents have not been obtained by him.

The conduct of ASI Kuldeep is deplorable as he has knowingly

failed to obey the direction of law in which he has to conduct

himself, and has also failed to obey the manner in which he has

to conduct investigation to the pre-judice of those effected by

the allegations in the said FIR. He has even failed to produce

the final police report at a time when he was legally bound to

do so. This Court is of the considered view that the

Investigating Officer ASI Kuldeep has prima facie committed

all the said offences. Accordingly, the present complaint in

writing is sent to your good-self by the Court of the

undersigned.

Shri Kamal Sharma, Reader of the Court is authorized to

prosecute this complaint being subordinate of the Presiding

officer of the Court of undersigned. Reader of the Court is at

liberty to seek the permanent exemption from personal

appearance from your goodself Court being a public servant.

The undersigned Will not be able to required to deposed before

the Court of your goodself for the purpose of evidence or

otherwise in view of the immunity conferred upon me under

Section 127 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

6

Therefore, it is submitted that your good self may kindly take

cognizance of offence under Section 198, 199(b) and 210 of

BNS, 2023 against the accused and to summon & try him for

said offence.’

8. A list of witnesses and the list of documents were also annexed

with the abovementioned complaint. The abovementioned list consisted of

two witnesses and 14 documents. Once the abovementioned complaint was

received in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Charkhi Dadri, it

was made over to Court of another Judicial Magistrate First Class Charkhi

Dadri. On 29.08.2025, a detailed order was passed and the petitioner was

summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under

Sections 198, 199(b) & 210 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

9. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the petitioner, who has

been summoned as an accused, preferred the present petition.

10. Heard.

11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner is a public servant, who had been discharging his public duties

in a bona fide manner, and that in a grossly illegal manner, the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class Charkhi Dadri passed the summoning order

and summoned the petitioner to face trial for the commission of offence

punishable under Sections 198, 199(b) & 210 of BNS.

12. With regard to above, threefold objections have been raised by

learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the absence of sanction before

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

7

taking cognizance against the petitioner, who is a public servant, and the

alleged act was done by him while discharging his duty as such; secondly,

the Court, which took cognizance, had no jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint; and thirdly, on the basis of allegations contained in the

complaint, any prima facie case for summoning of petitioner to face trial for

the commission of offence punishable under Sections 198, 199(b) & 210 of

BNS was not made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of

his arguments has referred to the principles of law propounded by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Suneeti Toteja V/s State of

U.P. & Anr.’ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6898 of 2023 and ‘G.C.

Manjunath & Ors. V/s Seetaram’ Criminal Appeal No.1759 of 2025.

13. The learned State Counsel has controverted the

abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the instant

case is a very serious case, wherein there are allegations with regard to

illegal fabrication of Court order, on the basis of which a truck involved in

the commission of offence was got released by its owner. As per learned

State Counsel, since fraud was played by forging the order of the Court, it

was incumbent upon the petitioner to deal with the abovementioned case

with utmost seriousness and urgency, but the facts itself show that the

Investigating Officer had conducted the investigation in a very negligent and

casual manner, and for almost ten months, i.e. from the date of registration

of FIR on 18.09.2024 till 02.07.2025, when the complaint was forwarded by

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

8

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, no significant progress

in the investigation had taken place.

14. According to learned State Counsel, the facts in itself speaks in

volumes about the mala fide intentions of the petitioner, who despite being a

responsible public servant, failed to act in accordance with the statutory

provisions. As per learned State Counsel, the petitioner has been prosecuted

for the commission of offence punishable under Section 199 of BNS and for

taking cognizance for the abovementioned offence, there is no requirement

of sanction under Section 218 of BNSS.

15. I have given my due consideration to the abovementioned

arguments.

16. The record has been perused carefully.

17. In my considered opinion, in view of abovementioned factual

situation of the present case and the abovementioned arguments, following

are the points, which need determination in the present case:-

(I) Whether there is requirement of sanction before taking

cognizance against the petitioner, who is a public servant, and

was discharging his duty as such;

(II) Whether the Court, which took cognizance, had no jurisdiction

to entertain the complaint; and

(III) Whether on the basis of allegations contained in the complaint,

any prima facie case for summoning of petitioner to face trial

for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 198,

199(b) & 210 of BNS was not made out.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

9

POINT NO.I

18. As far as this point of determination is concerned, the sole plea

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a public

servant, and that the alleged illegal act, for which the petitioner is being

prosecuted, was part and parcel of his official duty and therefore, without

sanction, as prescribed under Section 218 of BNSS, cognizance against the

petitioner could not have been taken.

19. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

referred to Section 218 of BNSS, which prescribes that:-

‘When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public

servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction

of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been

committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the

discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of

such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise

provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may

be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence

employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the

Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may

be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence

employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the

State Government.’

20. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

also referred to the principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

10

Court of India in the case of ‘Suneeti Toteja’ (supra). In the abovementioned

case, an employee of Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) was prosecuted for

the commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 509, 120B, 192,

197, 204, 218, 218, 202, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. In the abovementioned

case, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed on the premise that request

for sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was sought, but the same was not

granted within the stipulated time and therefore, sanction for the prosecution

was deemed to have been received. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India observed that cognizance against the appellant was

barred.

21. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of ‘G.C. Manjunath’ (supra). In the

abovementioned case, several police officers were prosecuted for illegal

activity. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

propounded that if actions attributed to the accused persons emanate from

the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the

investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant, previous

sanction prescribed under Section 197 of CrPC is required.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the abovementioned

case, also observed that a mere excess or overreach in the performance of

official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory

protection mandated by law. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, the safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

11

authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of

the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory, merely because the acts alleged

may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty. Considering the

abovementioned facts and circumstances pertaining to abovementioned case,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the abovementioned order.

23. As far as the factual matrix of the present case is concerned, at

the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of ‘G.C. Manjunath’

(supra), the prosecution of public servant was for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506(b) read with Section

34 of IPC, and in the case of ‘Suneeti Toteja’ (supra), it was for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 509, 120B, 192, 197,

204, 218, 218, 202, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. However, the facts of the

present case are altogether different from the facts of the abovementioned

two cases.

24. In the present case, cognizance for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 198, 199(b) and 210 of BNS has been taken

against the petitioner. With regard to sanction for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 199 of BNS, proviso to Section 218 of BNSS

prescribes that ‘provided also that no sanction shall be required in case of a

public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under

Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70,

Section 71, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78,

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

12

Section 79, Section 143, Section 199 or Section 200 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023’.

25. In view of abovementioned bare provisions enshrined in BNSS,

it is apparent that for the commission of offence under Section 199 of BNS,

previous sanction of the concerned authority is not required. In view of

abovementioned distinguishing factors, it is hereby observed that the

principles of law laid down in the case of ‘Suneeti Toteja’ and ‘G.C.

Manjunath’ (supra), are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case. Thus, it is hereby observed that on the basis of abovesaid plea,

any ground for quashing of order/complaint is not made out. The point of

determination No.1 is therefore, answered accordingly, i.e. against the

petitioner.

POINT NO.II

26. As far as this point of determination is concerned, the question

with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court has been raised in the

present case. Qua abovementioned territorial jurisdiction, it is pertinent to

mention here that the complaint was submitted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class Charkhi Dadri and the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate Charkhi Dadri made over the abovementioned complaint to

another Judicial Magistrate, who took the cognizance. Since as per

notification, every Judicial Magistrate enjoys territorial jurisdiction over the

entire District, in my considered opinion, on the ground of lack of territorial

jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal. In fact the

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

13

impugned order is not an order passed by the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class lacking territorial jurisdiction. Thus, it is hereby held

that on this ground also, the impugned order cannot be set aside/quashed.

Hence, the point of determination No.2 is hereby answered, against the

petitioner.

POINT NO.III

27. As far as this point of determination is concerned, the plea was

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that before registration of FIR,

enquiry was conducted and the Superintendent of Police Charkhi Dadri

himself observed that the petitioner had been discharging his duty diligently,

in accordance with the statutory provisions, and that no laxity, whatsoever,

was committed by him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once

the senior most police officer of the District, who was also the punishing

authority of the petitioner, himself observed that no laxity, whatsoever, was

committed by the petitioner, the prosecution of petitioner on the same

ground is not sustainable.

28. With regard to abovementioned plea of the learned counsel for

the petitioner, it is relevant to mention here that the question as to whether

the petitioner had been performing his duty bona fide and diligent manner or

not, in accordance with statutory provision or not, is a matter which can be

determined at the time of adjudication of trial only. At this stage, merely on

the basis of bare allegations of the petitioner, that he had not committed any

fault, the summoning order cannot be quashed.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

14

29. The trial in the present case is still at initial stage, and therefore,

the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases

of ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others’

2021 SCC OnlineSC 315, ‘State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal’, 1991(1)

RCR 383, ‘Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of Karnataka’, Criminal Appeal

No.4728 of 2025, ‘M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.’ 2025(3)

RCR (Criminal) 175, and ‘Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)’, are

applicable to the present case.

30. With regard to scope and indulgence of this Court for

exercising 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.’ (supra). 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 the

reliability 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

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

15

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; and

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 v. State of Punjab’

and ‘State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal’, 1991(1) RCR

383, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.’

31. In addition to above, in the case of ‘Ch. Bhajan Lal’ (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on

the question of quashing of FIR has laid down that the FIR 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 any

offence 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.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

16

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.

32. Similarly in the case of ‘Sadiq B. Hanchinmani’ (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that police investigation should be

allowed to proceed unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention.

According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the High Court should not

interfere with the investigation when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable

offences.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

17

33. In the case of ‘M/s Balaji Traders’ (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should

be exercised sparingly in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. As per Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India allegations in FIR or complaint must be taken at face value

and accepted in their entirety to assess whether they disclose a cognizable

offence.

34. In the case of ‘Muskan’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India held that the Court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of

quashing and that quashing of FIR should be an exception and exercised

sparingly in rarest of rare cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has

further held that Courts cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability

or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

35. In view of abovementioned principles of law and the factual

matrix of the present case, in my considered opinion, on this ground also, the

impugned order cannot be set aside. Hence, point of determination No.3,

too, is hereby answered, accordingly, i.e. against the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

36. In view of finding recorded on the point of determination No.I

to III, it is hereby observed that no ground for quashing of complaint and

impugned order is made out, and that the present petition is devoid of merits.

37. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held

that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. The same

is hereby dismissed, accordingly.

CRM-M-67182-2025 (O&M)

18

38. It is however clarified that any observation recorded in this

judgment shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case,

and the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all the pleas, related to factual

aspect of this case, during the course of trial, before the learned trial Court.

39. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed

of, accordingly.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

14.09.2026

Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes

Whether Reportable Yes