CRM-M-14264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

Sukhwinder Singh

State of Punjab &

Kulwinder Singh

State of Punjab & Another

CORAM:

Present:

ALOK JAIN, J.

1.

quashing of the FIR No. 81 dated 26.09.2024, under Sections 64, 316(2),

318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

BNS), registered at Police Station Garhdiwal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-14264-2025

Sukhwinder Singh

Versus

State of Punjab & Another

CRM-M-11380-2025

Kulwinder Singh

Versus

State of Punjab & Another

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

****

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

****

ALOK JAIN, J.

The present set of two petitions have been filed seeking

quashing of the FIR No. 81 dated 26.09.2024, under Sections 64, 316(2),

318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

BNS), registered at Police Station Garhdiwal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

-1-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-30.09.2025

……Petitioner

……Respondents

2025(O&M)

……Petitioner

……Respondents

ALOK JAIN

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

The present set of two petitions have been filed seeking

quashing of the FIR No. 81 dated 26.09.2024, under Sections 64, 316(2),

318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as

BNS), registered at Police Station Garhdiwal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

-

09.2025

The present set of two petitions have been filed seeking

quashing of the FIR No. 81 dated 26.09.2024, under Sections 64, 316(2),

referred to as

CRM-M-14264

2.

26.09.2024, therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the

petitioners they are taken up toge

to the filing

under:

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

Both the Petitions arise out of the same FIR No. 81

26.09.2024, therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the

petitioners they are taken up together. The brief facts of the case which led

filing of the present FIR and as narrated by learned counsel are as

2.1 On 20.06.2024, a written complaint was submitted to the

SSP Hoshiarpur, wherein the Complainant alleged that during

the period of ongoing matrimonial discord of complainant with

her husband, in the year 2021, she came into acquaintance with

Sukhwinder (herein after referred to as Petitioner No. 1), who

is a doctor by profession. Petitioner No. 1 represented himself

as a divorcee and expressed his intention to marry the

complainant. He further undertook complete responsibility for

sending her daughter to abroad. Relying upon the false

assurances of marriage, both also developed physical relations.

Subsequently, at the time of sendi

abroad, the petitioner no. 1 induced the complainant to take

loan and assured the complainant that he would repay the

instalments of entire loan amount. Whereupon, the

complainant availed a loan of Rs. 13 lakhs from HDFC bank,

Rs. 9 Lakhs loan from COP Bank and Rs. 7 Lakhs cash after

pledging her gold. It was alleged by the complainant that out

of the said loan amount Rs. 9 Lakhs were transferred in the

bank account of Kulwinder Singh (herein after referred to as

Petitioner No. 2), who is the brother of Petitioner No. 1.

2.2 Subsequently, when the complainant demanded repayment

of the loan amount, petitioner no. 1 began to evade his liability

by making excuses regarding financial constraints. The

complainant further alleged that t

-2-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

out of the same FIR No. 81, dated

26.09.2024, therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the

ther. The brief facts of the case which led

of the present FIR and as narrated by learned counsel are as

On 20.06.2024, a written complaint was submitted to the

SSP Hoshiarpur, wherein the Complainant alleged that during

of ongoing matrimonial discord of complainant with

her husband, in the year 2021, she came into acquaintance with

Sukhwinder (herein after referred to as Petitioner No. 1), who

is a doctor by profession. Petitioner No. 1 represented himself

and expressed his intention to marry the

complainant. He further undertook complete responsibility for

sending her daughter to abroad. Relying upon the false

assurances of marriage, both also developed physical relations.

Subsequently, at the time of sending complainant’s daughter

abroad, the petitioner no. 1 induced the complainant to take

loan and assured the complainant that he would repay the

instalments of entire loan amount. Whereupon, the

complainant availed a loan of Rs. 13 lakhs from HDFC bank,

9 Lakhs loan from COP Bank and Rs. 7 Lakhs cash after

pledging her gold. It was alleged by the complainant that out

of the said loan amount Rs. 9 Lakhs were transferred in the

bank account of Kulwinder Singh (herein after referred to as

who is the brother of Petitioner No. 1.

Subsequently, when the complainant demanded repayment

of the loan amount, petitioner no. 1 began to evade his liability

by making excuses regarding financial constraints. The

complainant further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 continued

-

dated

26.09.2024, therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the

ther. The brief facts of the case which led

of the present FIR and as narrated by learned counsel are as

On 20.06.2024, a written complaint was submitted to the

SSP Hoshiarpur, wherein the Complainant alleged that during

of ongoing matrimonial discord of complainant with

her husband, in the year 2021, she came into acquaintance with

Sukhwinder (herein after referred to as Petitioner No. 1), who

is a doctor by profession. Petitioner No. 1 represented himself

and expressed his intention to marry the

complainant. He further undertook complete responsibility for

sending her daughter to abroad. Relying upon the false

assurances of marriage, both also developed physical relations.

ng complainant’s daughter

abroad, the petitioner no. 1 induced the complainant to take

loan and assured the complainant that he would repay the

instalments of entire loan amount. Whereupon, the

complainant availed a loan of Rs. 13 lakhs from HDFC bank,

9 Lakhs loan from COP Bank and Rs. 7 Lakhs cash after

pledging her gold. It was alleged by the complainant that out

of the said loan amount Rs. 9 Lakhs were transferred in the

bank account of Kulwinder Singh (herein after referred to as

Subsequently, when the complainant demanded repayment

of the loan amount, petitioner no. 1 began to evade his liability

by making excuses regarding financial constraints. The

he petitioner no. 1 continued

CRM-M-14264

3.

complainant, who is serving in the Punjab Police, has concocted the entire

story with the intent to extract money from the peti

from the fact that vague allegations have been levelled without mentioning

any specific date, time, or place. Learned counsel further pointed out that,

earlier also, a complaint dated 26.04.2024 was filed by the complainant on

similar allegations, which was found to be false. Thereafter, on 03.06.2024,

the complainant, accompanied by some notorious persons, came to the

clinic of petitioner N

clinic, which was also captured in the CCTV footage. The said incident was

duly reported by the petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2024 to the police authority,

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

to engage in physical relations with the complainant solely on

the basis of false promises of

repeated requests and demand

the money, Petitioner No. 1 blocked her and h

marriage with another women.

2.3 Following which a complaint was

complainant but due to the intervention of DSP, the matter was

compromised and certain cheques and affidavits were got

prepared, however, the petitioner no. 1 re

settlement terms and again a complaint was moved by

complainant, making specific allegations against the concerned

SHO who under the influence of a local MLA failed to initiate

legal action against the petitioner no. 1, even when the

complainant was allegedly threatened at gunpoint by petitioner

no. 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

complainant, who is serving in the Punjab Police, has concocted the entire

story with the intent to extract money from the peti

from the fact that vague allegations have been levelled without mentioning

any specific date, time, or place. Learned counsel further pointed out that,

earlier also, a complaint dated 26.04.2024 was filed by the complainant on

ilar allegations, which was found to be false. Thereafter, on 03.06.2024,

the complainant, accompanied by some notorious persons, came to the

of petitioner No.1, misbehaved with him, and caused damage to the

clinic, which was also captured in the CCTV footage. The said incident was

duly reported by the petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2024 to the police authority,

-3-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

to engage in physical relations with the complainant solely on

of marriage. However, upon the

and demands by the complainant to return

the money, Petitioner No. 1 blocked her and had solemnized

marriage with another women.

Following which a complaint was lodged by the

complainant but due to the intervention of DSP, the matter was

compromised and certain cheques and affidavits were got

prepared, however, the petitioner no. 1 refused to honour the

settlement terms and again a complaint was moved by

complainant, making specific allegations against the concerned

SHO who under the influence of a local MLA failed to initiate

legal action against the petitioner no. 1, even when the

mplainant was allegedly threatened at gunpoint by petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

complainant, who is serving in the Punjab Police, has concocted the entire

story with the intent to extract money from the petitioners, which is evident

from the fact that vague allegations have been levelled without mentioning

any specific date, time, or place. Learned counsel further pointed out that,

earlier also, a complaint dated 26.04.2024 was filed by the complainant on

ilar allegations, which was found to be false. Thereafter, on 03.06.2024,

the complainant, accompanied by some notorious persons, came to the

, misbehaved with him, and caused damage to the

clinic, which was also captured in the CCTV footage. The said incident was

duly reported by the petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2024 to the police authority,

-

to engage in physical relations with the complainant solely on

marriage. However, upon the

by the complainant to return

ad solemnized

by the

complainant but due to the intervention of DSP, the matter was

compromised and certain cheques and affidavits were got

fused to honour the

settlement terms and again a complaint was moved by

complainant, making specific allegations against the concerned

SHO who under the influence of a local MLA failed to initiate

legal action against the petitioner no. 1, even when the

mplainant was allegedly threatened at gunpoint by petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

complainant, who is serving in the Punjab Police, has concocted the entire

tioners, which is evident

from the fact that vague allegations have been levelled without mentioning

any specific date, time, or place. Learned counsel further pointed out that,

earlier also, a complaint dated 26.04.2024 was filed by the complainant on

ilar allegations, which was found to be false. Thereafter, on 03.06.2024,

the complainant, accompanied by some notorious persons, came to the

, misbehaved with him, and caused damage to the

clinic, which was also captured in the CCTV footage. The said incident was

duly reported by the petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2024 to the police authority,

CRM-M-14264

and a subsequent representation dated 18.06.2024 was also

no action has been taken by the authorities till date.

4.

complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the above

filed by the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel while

content of the both the complaints moved by the complainant submits that

earlier, the complainant alleged that she has been cheated for the amount of

₹20 Lakhs while in the subsequent complaint amount is stated to be

Lakhs, which

the complainant.

5.

was taken on the complaint

to the influence of complainant, who

the same district, the petitioner No.1 was earlier compelled to approach this

Hon’ble High Court. It was only pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2024

passed by this Hon’ble Court

registered against the complainant.

6.

so far as the money transaction is concerned, petitioner No. 1 had taken a

friendly loan of

repaid, as is evident from Bank Statement (Annexure P

the present petition.

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

and a subsequent representation dated 18.06.2024 was also

no action has been taken by the authorities till date.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the present

complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the above

filed by the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel while

content of the both the complaints moved by the complainant submits that

earlier, the complainant alleged that she has been cheated for the amount of

20 Lakhs while in the subsequent complaint amount is stated to be

Lakhs, which prima facie shows material contradictions in the statements of

the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as no action

was taken on the complaint dated 04.06.2024

to the influence of complainant, who is serving in the police department of

the same district, the petitioner No.1 was earlier compelled to approach this

Hon’ble High Court. It was only pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2024

passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRWP- 6895

registered against the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that,

far as the money transaction is concerned, petitioner No. 1 had taken a

friendly loan of ₹13 lakhs from the complainant, which already stands

epaid, as is evident from Bank Statement (Annexure P

the present petition. Learned counsel in addition to above has submitted

-4-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

and a subsequent representation dated 18.06.2024 was also submitted, but

no action has been taken by the authorities till date.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the present

complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the above-mentioned complaint

filed by the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel while emphasizing on the

content of the both the complaints moved by the complainant submits that

earlier, the complainant alleged that she has been cheated for the amount of

20 Lakhs while in the subsequent complaint amount is stated to be ₹28

shows material contradictions in the statements of

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as no action

dated 04.06.2024 made by petitioner no 1, due

is serving in the police department of

the same district, the petitioner No.1 was earlier compelled to approach this

Hon’ble High Court. It was only pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2024

6895-2024 that an FIR came to be

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that,

far as the money transaction is concerned, petitioner No. 1 had taken a

13 lakhs from the complainant, which already stands

epaid, as is evident from Bank Statement (Annexure P-6) appended with

Learned counsel in addition to above has submitted

-

submitted, but

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the present

mentioned complaint

emphasizing on the

content of the both the complaints moved by the complainant submits that

earlier, the complainant alleged that she has been cheated for the amount of

28

shows material contradictions in the statements of

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as no action

made by petitioner no 1, due

is serving in the police department of

the same district, the petitioner No.1 was earlier compelled to approach this

Hon’ble High Court. It was only pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2024

be

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that,

far as the money transaction is concerned, petitioner No. 1 had taken a

13 lakhs from the complainant, which already stands

6) appended with

Learned counsel in addition to above has submitted

CRM-M-14264

that Petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

submitted that, at the request of P

was deposited in the account of Petitioner No. 2, which was duly repaid to

the complainant.

7.

respondent-

therefore she could not be said to be acting under any pretext of false

promise to marriage

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (2) RC

was quashed on the ground that the complainant was already married. The

relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner is reproduced as under:

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

that Petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

submitted that, at the request of Petitioner No. 1, an amount of

was deposited in the account of Petitioner No. 2, which was duly repaid to

the complainant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently

complainant is already married and having tw

therefore she could not be said to be acting under any pretext of false

promise to marriage and as such the matter is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (2) RCR(Criminal) 175

was quashed on the ground that the complainant was already married. The

relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner is reproduced as under:

“9. Similar issue was considered by this Court i

Ahamed's case (supra) on almost identical facts where the

prosecutrix herself was already a married woman having three

children. The complaint of alleged rape on false promise of

marriage was made five years after they had started having

relations. She even got pregnant from the loins of the accused.

Therein she got divorce from her existing marriage much after

the relations between the parties started. This Court found that

there cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix

had given her consent for sexual relationship under

-5-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

that Petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

etitioner No. 1, an amount of ₹6,68,000/-

was deposited in the account of Petitioner No. 2, which was duly repaid to

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the

complainant is already married and having two children

therefore she could not be said to be acting under any pretext of false

the matter is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Gupta v.

R(Criminal) 175 wherein the FIR

was quashed on the ground that the complainant was already married. The

relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the

“9. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Naim

Ahamed's case (supra) on almost identical facts where the

prosecutrix herself was already a married woman having three

children. The complaint of alleged rape on false promise of

marriage was made five years after they had started having

She even got pregnant from the loins of the accused.

Therein she got divorce from her existing marriage much after

the relations between the parties started. This Court found that

there cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix

r consent for sexual relationship under

-

that Petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

-

was deposited in the account of Petitioner No. 2, which was duly repaid to

that the

o children

therefore she could not be said to be acting under any pretext of false

the matter is squarely covered by the

Vinod Gupta v.

wherein the FIR

was quashed on the ground that the complainant was already married. The

relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the

n Naim

Ahamed's case (supra) on almost identical facts where the

prosecutrix herself was already a married woman having three

children. The complaint of alleged rape on false promise of

marriage was made five years after they had started having

She even got pregnant from the loins of the accused.

Therein she got divorce from her existing marriage much after

the relations between the parties started. This Court found that

there cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix

r consent for sexual relationship under

CRM-M-14264

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

misconception. The accused was not held to be guilty. Relevant

paragraph 21 thereof is extracted below:

"21. In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a

married woman having three children, could not be sa

have acted under the alleged false promise given by the

appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the

consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant.

Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with

him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the

year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her

deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then

also to construe such allegations as `rape' by the appellant,

would be stretching the case too far.

married woman and the mother of three children was matured

and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the

consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was

consenting to. Even otherwise, if her en

course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it

appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children

by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had

developed liking for him. She had gone to stay

the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a

better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated

-6-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

misconception. The accused was not held to be guilty. Relevant

paragraph 21 thereof is extracted below:

In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a

married woman having three children, could not be said to

have acted under the alleged false promise given by the

appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the

consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant.

Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with

about five years till she gave complaint in the

Even if the allegations made by her in her

deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then

also to construe such allegations as `rape' by the appellant,

e too far. The prosecutrix being a

married woman and the mother of three children was matured

and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the

consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was

. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the

course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it

appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children

by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had

developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during

the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a

better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated

-

misconception. The accused was not held to be guilty. Relevant

In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a

id to

have acted under the alleged false promise given by the

appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the

consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant.

Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with

about five years till she gave complaint in the

Even if the allegations made by her in her

deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then

also to construe such allegations as `rape' by the appellant,

The prosecutrix being a

married woman and the mother of three children was matured

and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the

consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was

tire conduct during the

course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it

appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children

by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had

with him during

the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a

better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated

CRM-M-14264

8.

grant of any relief to the petitioner and has submitted that the

commit the crime was writ large and supported by cogent evidence.

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male

child through the loin of the accused, she did not hav

complaint against the accused of he having given false

promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited

the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to

know that he was a married man having children also, still she

continued to live with the accused at another premises without

any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by

mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her

husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes

must have taken place between them, that she filed the present

complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded

under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 had stated that she had

filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay

her huge amount. Thus, having regard to

circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of

imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the

sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception

of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of ha

rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC."

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of any relief to the petitioner and has submitted that the

commit the crime was writ large and supported by cogent evidence.

-7-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male

child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any

complaint against the accused of he having given false

promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited

the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to

know that he was a married man having children also, still she

to live with the accused at another premises without

any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by

mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her

husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes

ween them, that she filed the present

complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded

under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 had stated that she had

filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay

her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of

imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the

sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception

of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed

rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC."

earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of any relief to the petitioner and has submitted that the mens rea to

commit the crime was writ large and supported by cogent evidence.

-

by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male

e any

complaint against the accused of he having given false

promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited

the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to

know that he was a married man having children also, still she

to live with the accused at another premises without

any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by

mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her

husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes

ween them, that she filed the present

complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded

under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 had stated that she had

filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay

the facts and

circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of

imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the

sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception

ving committed

earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

to

commit the crime was writ large and supported by cogent evidence.

CRM-M-14264

Learned Counsel further submitted that

complaint made by the complainant

inquiry report of the matter from the S

which, the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner and

others in the aforesaid application

Operation, Hoshiarpur, also found that Petitioner No. 1

and brother of Petitioner No. 2

with planned manner, in connivance with the petitioner and his nephew

Gaurav Toora developed physical relations with the complainant, sexually

exploited the complainant and got transferred

accounts of Petitioner No. 2 and Gaurav Toora, from the

complainant/respondent No.2 after getting advanced bank loan to the

complainant and also grabbed gold ornaments weighing 3 ½ tola of the

complainant. The entire inquiry was rev

consequently the SSP, Hoshiarpur

District Hoshiarpur to register and to investigate the case, resulting which,

FIR No.81 dated 26.09.2024 U/s 64, 316 (2), 318(4) of BNS was registered

against the Sukhwinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Gaurav Toora.

9.

Gaurav Toora was later found to be innocent after the detailed inquiry

conducted upon the application filed by his father dated 29.1

Learned State Counsel submits that the challan have been presented in the

case and the trial has commenced.

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

Learned Counsel further submitted that in pursuance to the receipt of the

made by the complainant, the SSP, Hoshiarpur, sought detailed

inquiry report of the matter from the SP Operation, Hoshiarpur, upon

the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner and

others in the aforesaid application are

Operation, Hoshiarpur, also found that Petitioner No. 1

ther of Petitioner No. 2-Kulwinder Singh, from the very inception

with planned manner, in connivance with the petitioner and his nephew

Gaurav Toora developed physical relations with the complainant, sexually

exploited the complainant and got transferred

accounts of Petitioner No. 2 and Gaurav Toora, from the

complainant/respondent No.2 after getting advanced bank loan to the

complainant and also grabbed gold ornaments weighing 3 ½ tola of the

complainant. The entire inquiry was reviewed by the higher officials and

consequently the SSP, Hoshiarpur, directed the SHO, P.S. Garhdiwala,

District Hoshiarpur to register and to investigate the case, resulting which,

FIR No.81 dated 26.09.2024 U/s 64, 316 (2), 318(4) of BNS was registered

ainst the Sukhwinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Gaurav Toora.

Learned State counsel further submits that the co

Gaurav Toora was later found to be innocent after the detailed inquiry

conducted upon the application filed by his father dated 29.1

Learned State Counsel submits that the challan have been presented in the

case and the trial has commenced.

-8-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

in pursuance to the receipt of the

, the SSP, Hoshiarpur, sought detailed

P Operation, Hoshiarpur, upon

the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner and

found to be correct. The SP

Operation, Hoshiarpur, also found that Petitioner No. 1-Sukhwinder Singh

Kulwinder Singh, from the very inception

with planned manner, in connivance with the petitioner and his nephew

Gaurav Toora developed physical relations with the complainant, sexually

exploited the complainant and got transferred ₹23,53,908/- in the bank

accounts of Petitioner No. 2 and Gaurav Toora, from the

complainant/respondent No.2 after getting advanced bank loan to the

complainant and also grabbed gold ornaments weighing 3 ½ tola of the

iewed by the higher officials and

directed the SHO, P.S. Garhdiwala,

District Hoshiarpur to register and to investigate the case, resulting which,

FIR No.81 dated 26.09.2024 U/s 64, 316 (2), 318(4) of BNS was registered

ainst the Sukhwinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Gaurav Toora.

Learned State counsel further submits that the co-accused

Gaurav Toora was later found to be innocent after the detailed inquiry

conducted upon the application filed by his father dated 29.10.2024.

Learned State Counsel submits that the challan have been presented in the

-

in pursuance to the receipt of the

, the SSP, Hoshiarpur, sought detailed

P Operation, Hoshiarpur, upon

the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner and

found to be correct. The SP

Sukhwinder Singh

Kulwinder Singh, from the very inception

with planned manner, in connivance with the petitioner and his nephew

Gaurav Toora developed physical relations with the complainant, sexually

in the bank

accounts of Petitioner No. 2 and Gaurav Toora, from the

complainant/respondent No.2 after getting advanced bank loan to the

complainant and also grabbed gold ornaments weighing 3 ½ tola of the

iewed by the higher officials and

directed the SHO, P.S. Garhdiwala,

District Hoshiarpur to register and to investigate the case, resulting which,

FIR No.81 dated 26.09.2024 U/s 64, 316 (2), 318(4) of BNS was registered

accused

Gaurav Toora was later found to be innocent after the detailed inquiry

0.2024.

Learned State Counsel submits that the challan have been presented in the

CRM-M-14264

10.

perused the record.

11.

between the petitioners and the complainant, which although contended by

petitioners to be a friendly loan and also stated to have already been repaid.

To substantiate the argument, reliance has been placed on bank statements.

However, the

transactions. There are serious allegations of sexual assault on false pretext

of marriage, inducing the complainant to take loans amounting to nearly

₹28 lakhs, execution of a compromise which w

threats allegedly extended at gunpoint, which cannot be brushed aside at

this preliminary stage.

12.

has concocted the entire case with the intention to extort money doe

hold much weight at this stage, as the

of the loan amount in the complaints, or inconsistent version of the

complainant, are matter of trial which requires appreciation of evidence.

13.

counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of

Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (2) RCR (Criminal) 175

the reason that in the above mentioned case, the prosecutrix admitted that

she was married with the accused, while subsisting the previous marriage

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well a State and

perused the record.

It is admitted fact that there were certain monet

between the petitioners and the complainant, which although contended by

petitioners to be a friendly loan and also stated to have already been repaid.

To substantiate the argument, reliance has been placed on bank statements.

However, the allegations in the FIR are not merely confined to financial

transactions. There are serious allegations of sexual assault on false pretext

of marriage, inducing the complainant to take loans amounting to nearly

₹28 lakhs, execution of a compromise which w

threats allegedly extended at gunpoint, which cannot be brushed aside at

this preliminary stage.

The argument raised by the petitioners that the complainant

has concocted the entire case with the intention to extort money doe

hold much weight at this stage, as the over

of the loan amount in the complaints, or inconsistent version of the

complainant, are matter of trial which requires appreciation of evidence.

Moreover, the reliance

counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of

Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (2) RCR (Criminal) 175

the reason that in the above mentioned case, the prosecutrix admitted that

arried with the accused, while subsisting the previous marriage

-9-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well a State and

there were certain monetary transactions

between the petitioners and the complainant, which although contended by

petitioners to be a friendly loan and also stated to have already been repaid.

To substantiate the argument, reliance has been placed on bank statements.

allegations in the FIR are not merely confined to financial

transactions. There are serious allegations of sexual assault on false pretext

of marriage, inducing the complainant to take loans amounting to nearly

₹28 lakhs, execution of a compromise which was later dishonoured, and

threats allegedly extended at gunpoint, which cannot be brushed aside at

The argument raised by the petitioners that the complainant

has concocted the entire case with the intention to extort money does not

stated or altering of the figures

of the loan amount in the complaints, or inconsistent version of the

complainant, are matter of trial which requires appreciation of evidence.

Moreover, the reliance placed upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Vinod Gupta v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (2) RCR (Criminal) 175, is also not applicable, for

the reason that in the above mentioned case, the prosecutrix admitted that

arried with the accused, while subsisting the previous marriage

-

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well a State and

ary transactions

between the petitioners and the complainant, which although contended by

petitioners to be a friendly loan and also stated to have already been repaid.

To substantiate the argument, reliance has been placed on bank statements.

allegations in the FIR are not merely confined to financial

transactions. There are serious allegations of sexual assault on false pretext

of marriage, inducing the complainant to take loans amounting to nearly

as later dishonoured, and

threats allegedly extended at gunpoint, which cannot be brushed aside at

The argument raised by the petitioners that the complainant

s not

stated or altering of the figures

of the loan amount in the complaints, or inconsistent version of the

placed upon by the learned

Vinod Gupta v. State of

, for

the reason that in the above mentioned case, the prosecutrix admitted that

arried with the accused, while subsisting the previous marriage

CRM-M-14264

and resided together as husband and wife, however accused later on refused

to solemnize court marriage, also there were material contradictions in the

stand taken by the complainant in the FIR

statement, which prima

to the quashing of the FIR. However, in the present case, the allegations are

not only confined to a false promise of marriage but extend to financial

inducement, misappropriation of large sums of money, and breach of trust.

14.

complainant is a serving police official and wields undue influence does

not, by itself, justify quashing, for the reason tha

fairness in investigation cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage.

15.

Hon’ble Supreme Court. In

Singh, 2023 (18) SCC 399

Court, at the stage of quashing, cannot conduct a mini trial or test the

sufficiency of evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced

as under:

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

and resided together as husband and wife, however accused later on refused

to solemnize court marriage, also there were material contradictions in the

stand taken by the complainant in the FIR

statement, which prima-facie shows the consent of the complainant lead

to the quashing of the FIR. However, in the present case, the allegations are

not only confined to a false promise of marriage but extend to financial

ent, misappropriation of large sums of money, and breach of trust.

Nonetheless, the argument of the learned counsel that the

complainant is a serving police official and wields undue influence does

not, by itself, justify quashing, for the reason tha

fairness in investigation cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage.

The law on quashing of proceedings is well settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan

Singh, 2023 (18) SCC 399, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High

Court, at the stage of quashing, cannot conduct a mini trial or test the

sufficiency of evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced

“4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed

by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt

with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was

conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering

the applications against the judgment and order passed by the

-10-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

and resided together as husband and wife, however accused later on refused

to solemnize court marriage, also there were material contradictions in the

stand taken by the complainant in the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C

facie shows the consent of the complainant leading

to the quashing of the FIR. However, in the present case, the allegations are

not only confined to a false promise of marriage but extend to financial

ent, misappropriation of large sums of money, and breach of trust.

Nonetheless, the argument of the learned counsel that the

complainant is a serving police official and wields undue influence does

not, by itself, justify quashing, for the reason that such issue, as to the

fairness in investigation cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage.

The law on quashing of proceedings is well settled by the

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan

ble Supreme Court held that the High

Court, at the stage of quashing, cannot conduct a mini trial or test the

sufficiency of evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced

“4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed

the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt

with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was

conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering

the applications against the judgment and order passed by the

-

and resided together as husband and wife, however accused later on refused

to solemnize court marriage, also there were material contradictions in the

and Section 164 Cr.P.C

ing

to the quashing of the FIR. However, in the present case, the allegations are

not only confined to a false promise of marriage but extend to financial

Nonetheless, the argument of the learned counsel that the

complainant is a serving police official and wields undue influence does

t such issue, as to the

The law on quashing of proceedings is well settled by the

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan

ble Supreme Court held that the High

Court, at the stage of quashing, cannot conduct a mini trial or test the

sufficiency of evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced

“4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed

the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt

with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was

conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering

the applications against the judgment and order passed by the

CRM-M-14264

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of

the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court is not required to conduct

the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned

judgment and order has observed that the charges against the

accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the

prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the

charges. The charges are required to be prov

trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /

investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially

erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material

collected during the course of the investigation against t

accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the

Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is available to

proceed further against the accused for which the accused is

required to be tried or not".

4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the

initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is

malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the

investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the

-11-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

rt on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of

the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court is not required to conduct

h Court in the common impugned

judgment and order has observed that the charges against the

accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the

prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the

charges. The charges are required to be proved during the

trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /

investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially

erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material

collected during the course of the investigation against the

accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the

Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is available to

gainst the accused for which the accused is

4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the

initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is

malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the

estigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the

-

rt on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of

the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court is not required to conduct

h Court in the common impugned

judgment and order has observed that the charges against the

accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the

prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the

ed during the

trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /

investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially

erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material

he

accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the

Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is available to

gainst the accused for which the accused is

4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the

initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is

malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the

estigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the

CRM-M-14264

16.

Pradesh & Anr., 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 119

Court laid down a four

reproduced as under:

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on

conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been

charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in

observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal

proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal

proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be

considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered

at the conclusion of the trial. In an

required to be considered is a prima facie case and the

material collected during the course of the investigation,

which warranted the accused to be tried.”

Similarly, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar

& Anr., 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 119

Court laid down a four-step test for quashing, the relevant finding is

reproduced as under:

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine

the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an

invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is

sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of

sterling and impeccable quality?

-12-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on

conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been

sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in

t the initiation of the criminal

proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal

proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be

considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered

at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is

required to be considered is a prima facie case and the

material collected during the course of the investigation,

which warranted the accused to be tried.”

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar

& Anr., 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 119, the Hon’ble Supreme

step test for quashing, the relevant finding is

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine

the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by

invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482

(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is

sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of

sterling and impeccable quality?

-

directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on

conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been

sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in

t the initiation of the criminal

proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal

proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be

considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered

y case, at this stage, what is

required to be considered is a prima facie case and the

material collected during the course of the investigation,

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar

, the Hon’ble Supreme

step test for quashing, the relevant finding is

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine

accused by

invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482

(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is

sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of

CRM-M-14264

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused,

would rule out the assertions contained in the 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. Such exercise of power, besides

doing justice to the accused, wo

which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as

well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is

clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the

-13-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

ep two, whether the material relied upon by the accused,

would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and

overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,

he material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to

dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the

accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;

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

e steps is in the affirmative, judicial

conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such

proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides

doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as

well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is

clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the

-

ep two, whether the material relied upon by the accused,

would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and

overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,

he material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to

dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the

accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;

the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result

in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the

e steps is in the affirmative, judicial

conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such

proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides

uld save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as

well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is

clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the

CRM-M-14264

reasons as detailed in the paragraphs hereinafter.

17.

statements, is not of unimpeach

rather, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had taken the money from

the complainant and, hence the complaint has some element of truth,

though subject to the principles of law of evidence. At best, th

raised by the counsel for the petitioner constitutes a defence which can be

considered only during trial, by leading cogent and admissible evidences.

At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether there is a

prima facie case warr

18.

of the case, as well as the settled principle of law,

to be a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The allegati

preliminary inquiry. The petitioners

and to rebut

Therefore, this Court must refrain itself from

conducting a mini trial in a quashing proceeding, where the prima facie

ingredients of offence are duly met.

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & O

(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

In the present case, the above parameters do not meet for the

reasons as detailed in the paragraphs hereinafter.

The material relied upon by the petitioners, i.e. bank

statements, is not of unimpeachable quality so as to negate the allegations,

rather, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had taken the money from

the complainant and, hence the complaint has some element of truth,

though subject to the principles of law of evidence. At best, th

raised by the counsel for the petitioner constitutes a defence which can be

considered only during trial, by leading cogent and admissible evidences.

At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether there is a

prima facie case warranting trial or not.

Accordingly, keeping in the view the facts and circumstances

of the case, as well as the settled principle of law,

to be a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The allegations against the petitioners are grave and supported by

preliminary inquiry. The petitioners always have a right to lead evidences

and to rebut and test the veracity of the evidence, so brought in during trial.

Therefore, this Court must refrain itself from

conducting a mini trial in a quashing proceeding, where the prima facie

ingredients of offence are duly met.

-14-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & O₹ v. Madan Lal Kapoor

(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

In the present case, the above parameters do not meet for the

reasons as detailed in the paragraphs hereinafter.

The material relied upon by the petitioners, i.e. bank

able quality so as to negate the allegations,

rather, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had taken the money from

the complainant and, hence the complaint has some element of truth,

though subject to the principles of law of evidence. At best, the arguments

raised by the counsel for the petitioner constitutes a defence which can be

considered only during trial, by leading cogent and admissible evidences.

At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether there is a

Accordingly, keeping in the view the facts and circumstances

of the case, as well as the settled principle of law, this Court does not find it

to be a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ons against the petitioners are grave and supported by

always have a right to lead evidences

and test the veracity of the evidence, so brought in during trial.

Therefore, this Court must refrain itself from exercising inherent power by

conducting a mini trial in a quashing proceeding, where the prima facie

-

an Lal Kapoor

In the present case, the above parameters do not meet for the

The material relied upon by the petitioners, i.e. bank

able quality so as to negate the allegations,

rather, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had taken the money from

the complainant and, hence the complaint has some element of truth,

e arguments

raised by the counsel for the petitioner constitutes a defence which can be

considered only during trial, by leading cogent and admissible evidences.

At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether there is a

Accordingly, keeping in the view the facts and circumstances

it

to be a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ons against the petitioners are grave and supported by

always have a right to lead evidences

and test the veracity of the evidence, so brought in during trial.

exercising inherent power by

conducting a mini trial in a quashing proceeding, where the prima facie

CRM-M-14264

19.

However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to ra

before the trial C

accordance with law.

20.

21.

connected c

September

manju

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Whether Reportable:

14264-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M

In light of the above, the present petitions are dismissed.

However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to ra

before the trial Court, which shall be considered on their own merits and in

accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, stands dispose of.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another

connected case.

September 30, 2025

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether Reportable:- Yes/No

-15-

M-11380-2025 (O&M)

In light of the above, the present petitions are dismissed.

However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible defences

ourt, which shall be considered on their own merits and in

Pending application(s), if any, stands dispose of.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

-

In light of the above, the present petitions are dismissed.

ible defences

ourt, which shall be considered on their own merits and in

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another