IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

(130)

CRM-M-49148-2025  (O & M)

Reserved on: 04.09.2025

  Date of Pronouncement:09.09.2025

Sunil Kumar 

…... Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana  ...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. A.S. Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI,   

 J. (Oral)   

The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023  (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.)  is for quashing of FIR No.491

dated 18.07.2024 under Sections 318(4), 351(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023

registered at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar (Annexure P-1)

alongwith   all   consequential   proceedings   including   Final   Report   under

Section 197 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 173 Cr.P.C.) dated 19.10.2024 wherein

during   the   investigation   Sections   111(2)(b),   308(2),   338,   336(3),   340,

238(b), 215 and Section 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have also been added (Annexure

P-2).  

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 0491 dated

18.07.2024 under Sections 3(5), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 came to be

registered at the instance of Satbir Singh Saharan and reads as under:-

That the complainant is a law abiding citizen and he is

retired from the Air Force. 2)That complainant and his

daughter had taken shares in the Vikas Marg Welfare

Society, Mirzapur Chowk, Hisar, in lieu of which, the

society has transferred Plots No.35 and 36. 3) That

neither the complainant and his daughter have raised

any four wall on the above mentioned plots nor any kind

of boundary wall. By taking advantage of this, the above

mentioned accused started illegally interfering in the

shares/plots of complainant and his daughter with

intention to take illegal possession. Upon which,

complainant talked to above mentioned accused several

times for not Interfering by doing illegal occupation on

said plots, but above mentioned accused did not give any

satisfactory answer and started negotiating with the

complainant by stating that if he wants to save his

property, so in lieu of which, half of the share/plot will

have to be given to said accused, otherwise the

complainant and his daughter do whatever they want, as

the said accused will take said property in their

possession. The above accused also said that they have

prepared documents and false assessments related to the

above/mentioned plots. Therefore, the complainant

cannot cause any harm to the above/mentioned accused.

The above accused also indirectly threatened the

complainant that if the complainant and his daughter

tried to use any kind of force, the consequences would

not be good because the above accused have good

relations with some police officers as the accused pay

huge amount of money on monthly basis to police

officers. 4. That above mentioned accused are criminal

type of persons. Many criminal cases are pending against

them. Above mentioned accused persons have illegally

taken possession on properties of many people in the city

and they use to extort huge amount of money from

everyone in the name of leaving the possession. In this

way, above mentioned accused persons have acquired

illegal property worth crores of rupees. It is necessary to

conduct an impartial enquiry on the said matter. Above

mentioned accused are openly claiming that they have

connivance with senior police officers and senior officers

have also stake in other properties occupied by the

accused. 5) That above mentioned accused, apart from

forcefully taking illegal possession on properties of

innocent and weak people, they are also involved in other

illegal activities like liquor smuggling and other drugs

etc. 6. That above mentioned accused persons in

connivance with each other and in collaboration with

different government departments used to prepare false

documents of properties of innocent people like

assessment etc. Just few days ago, news was published in

the newspaper in this regard that false documents of

properties in Hisar worth about Rs.15 lakh have been

prepared in connivance with some officials of the

Municipal Corporation, Hisar, enquiry on which is going

on. 7) That accused are directly and indirectly stating

complainant and his daughter that if the complainant and

his daughter try to come to plots, the consequences

would not be good. Therefore, the complainant Is now

left with no other option except to take legal action. 8)

That while accused persons are carrying out illegal

interference on the above mentioned property, they carry

dangerous dogs with them, so that complainant and his

daughter do not go to the above mentioned property and

if complainant and his daughter come to the above

mentioned property, they attack them and could cause

physical harm. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed before

you that legal action may kindly be taken by lodging FIR

for the respective offences against above mentioned

accused for interfering in the shares/plots of complainant

and his daughter, for threatening the complainant to face

dire consequences, if the applicant tries to restrain them

from interfering into the said land, he should be ready to

face dire consequences and for demanding half of the

share/plot in/lieu of not interfering in the share/plots of

the complainant and his daughter and further, said

accused persons are demanding half share in said

property in lieu of not committing criminal trespass and

for demanding extortion. Thanking you. Dated

18.07.2024.

3. The petitioner is not named in the FIR.  During the course of

the investigation, he was nominated as an accused.  On the culmination of

the investigation, the final report under Section 193 BNSS came to be

submitted  against the accused-petitioner alongwith the other accused.   A

copy of the final report under Section 193 BNSS is attached as Annexure P-2

to the present petition.  The relevant extract of the final report containing the

allegations against the petitioner is as under:-

8. On 23.07.2024 itself, the accused named in the case Ram

Avtar and Surjeet were arrested as per rules after investigation

and interrogation after having sufficient evidence against the

accused and were kept in the lock/up of Special Staff, Hisar.

During the formal interrogation of the accused named in the

case, Ram Avtar and Surjeet, the name of accused Sunil Kumar

came up, and after investigation accused Sunil Kumar was

arrested on the night of 24.07.2024 as per rules and was kept in

the lock/up of Special Staff, Hisar.

9. On 24.07.2024, the accused Ram Avtar, Surjeet and Sunil

Kumar were taken out of the lockup and thoroughly questioned.

Upon thorough questioning, the accused got their disclosure

recorded, which were written separately. The accused and

witnesses signed the disclosure. The accused Ram Avtar, Surjeet

and Sunil Kumar got recorded in their disclosure that whenever

we used to occupy a plot illegally, we used to force the plot

holder to sell the plot at a low price by threatening him, on

which Section 308 (2) BNS was invoked in the case.

10. On 24.07.2024, in reference to notice issued to SDO OP

Sector 1/4, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Office Hisar

under Section 94 BNSS dated 22.07.2024, Consumer Clerk

Dinesh DHBVNL Hisar provided certified copies of the

complete documents applied by the applicant for electricity

meter serial number 96790543. On inspection of these, 2 page

application form, accused Sunil son of Ram Kishan, Gali No 5,

Vinod Nagar, Hisar, was found the holder of allotment card of

The Vikas Marg Welfare Society Registration Number 896 Plot

38/39 and date of issue was 21.11.1994 and copy of Aadhaar

card, total 4 page, were taken in police possession.

11. On 24.07.2024 itself, a notice under Section 94 BNSS was

given to obtain a certified copy of the allotment card of plot

number 38/39 by reaching the office of The Vikas Welfare

Society. On this notice, the President Devendra Singh Panihar

wrote that plot number 38/39 is not allotted in the name of

Sunil Kumar. The card of the above mentioned plot holder Sunil

Kumar of plot number 38/39 has not been issued by our society

office. Therefore, Section 338, 336 (3) 340 (2) BNS was

invented in the case.

12. On 24.07.2024, accused Ram Avtar, Surjeet and Sunil were

produced in court and 4/day police custody was obtained.

Special staff reached Hisar and got them locked up. On

25.07.2024, the accused were taken out of the lockup and

further interrogation was done on which accused Ram Avtar,

Surjeet and Sunil got their disclosure registered again and

accused Ram Avtar and Surjeet mentioned in their disclosure

that Deputy Superintendent of Police Pradeep Yadav is also a

member of the gang. Accused Ram Avtar and Sunil Kumar

signed their disclosure and witnesses also signed and Surjeet

refused to sign his disclosure, Section 215 BNS was invoked in

the case. After interrogation, the accused were sent to lock up.

13. On 25.07.2024, the Incharge Special Staff received

information that Mukesh, the accused named in the case, had

sent his men to destroy evidence by demolishing the illegal

construction of the plots occupied by The Vikas Marg Society

with the help of JCB. On this information, Deputy Inspector

Inder Singh 1315 along with his staff reached the spot where

the wall of the illegal construction had already been demolished

by the JCB, on which the statements of the person present,

Pawan Kumar and the JCB driver were recorded. Pawan

Kumar recorded in his statement that he had brought the JCB

on the instructions of Mukesh Gujjar's brother Jai Singh,

resident of Dhani Qutubpur, and had made a video of the time

of breaking the wall and sent it to Jai Singh. I did not know

that this is disputed land. Accused Mukesh named in the case

has conspired with accused Jai Singh to destroy evidence by

demolishing the illegal construction on the occupied plot, hence

Section 238 BNS was invoked in this case.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

16 On 26.07.2024 itself, as per disclosure of accused Sunil

Kumar, fake agreement of plot no. 38/39 was recovered from

accused Sanjeev Kumar, which was taken into police possession

through Memo. The accused and the witness signed on the

Memo. The statements of witnesses were recorded.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

19 On 28.07.2024, the original owner of plot no. 38/39, which

were occupied by Sunil Kumar, Mehar Chand, husband of

deceased Indu Kumari, produced the death certificate of his

wife and a certified copy of the allotment card of plot no. 37/38,

which were taken in police possession. The witness signed on

the Memo. The statements of witnesses was recorded.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

22. On 29.07.2024, the accused Ram Avtar, Sunil, Surjeet were

taken out of the lockup and further interrogation was done on

which the accused got their statements recorded that Deputy

Superintendent of Police Pradeep Yadav is also a member of

our gang. On which the accused and the witnesses signed. The

accused Ram Avtar, Sunil, Surjeet were produced in the court

and taken on 2/day police remand and the special staff reached

Hisar and got the accused locked up in the lockup. Statements

of witnesses were recorded.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

27. On 03.08.2024 itself, witness Pawan son of Satbir resident

of village Satrod Klan district Hisar came to Special Staff Hisar

and presented 3 pen drives branded EVM 16 GB and affidavit

of statement to SIT member ASI Surendra Singh 1213/Hisar. On

observing all the three pen drives, it was found that the wall of

plot no. 29/30 of Vikas Marg Welfare Society, Mirzapur Chowk,

Hisar was broken by means of a JCB and the JCB was seen

standing there. The three pen drives branded EVM 16 GB were

prepared in separate bundles and were all stamped with seal

SK/3. The bundles and the affidavit were taken to the police as

evidence through memo. On which the witness put their

signatures. The statements were recorded.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

39. On dated 30.08.2024 DDA Narendra Hooda, Office of

Superintendent of Police, Hisar, after studying the

circumstances of the case, gave his opinion that "After thorough

perusal of the report of SIT Head my legal opinion point wise is

as follows (1) Misuse of Govt position by accused comes under

prevention of Corruption act and can be prosecuted. (2) The

accused can be prosecuted u/s 7 & 13 of P.C. Act. (3) The

provision of P.C. Act shall be extended to other co/accused who

have influence him. Sec. 7A & 8 of P.C. Act is applicable on

other accused. (4) As per sec. 19 of P.C. Act sanction from

competent authority is mandatory to prosecute any public

official. On the opinion of DDA Sahab, Sections 7,7A, 13, 8

P.C. Act were invented in the case.

4. It is the aforementioned FIR (Annexure P-1), Final report

(Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arsing therefrom that have

been sought to be quashed in the present petition.

5.  The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   contends  that   the

petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of conjectures and

surmises without any evidence whatsoever.  He has not been named in the

FIR.   The FIR (Annexure P-1) and the report under Section 193 BNSS

(Annexure P-2) do not disclose any evidence qua him.  The allegations in

the report under Section 193 BNSS that he alongwith the co-accused

Sanjeev got prepared a forged agreement to sell and got an electricity

connection for the plots No.38-39 has not been established.  In fact, he is a

bona fide purchaser for consideration from Sanjeev.  The registration of the

society in question had lapsed.  Therefore, the petitioner was well within his

rights to purchase the plots in question.  He, therefore, contends that the FIR

(Annexure   P-1),   final   report   (Annexure   P-2)   and   the  consequential

proceedings arising therefrom qua him ought to be quashed.

6.  I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.  The parameters of quashing of an FIR have been laid down in

the judgment of ‘State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992)

Supp (1) SCC 335’ and the same are  reproduced as under:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chaper XIV and of the

principles of law enunciated by this Court in a serious of decisions

relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226

or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have

extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of

cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be excercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down

any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad

kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report

or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and

other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose

a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police

officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or

'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non/cognizable offence,

no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an

order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of

the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so

absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

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."

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that

disputed   questions   of   fact   and   the   defence   of   an   accused   cannot   be

considered to quash an FIR and/or the report under Section 193 of BNSS.

Such disputed questions of fact and the defence of an accused can only be

adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial.  The relevant judgments in

this regard are as under:-

In ‘Maksud Saiyed versus State of Gujarat & Ors. 2007(4)

RCR(Criminal) 406’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

6. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a FIR in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure is well known. The court may not enter into

determination of a disputed question of fact at that stage. It

may, however, take note of the allegations made in the

complaint petition vis/a/vis the conduct of the parties. It is not

disputed that the bank had filed an original application before

the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. A civil suit was filed

at Vadodara in the year 2003. In the prospectus issued, it was

stated :

"Sr.

No. 

Suit

details 

Date   of

Filing 

Name of the

party 

Branch Amount   claimed

(Rs. in lacs)

4  DRT, A 

'bad 

28.3.03 

M/s. 

Nagami 

Nicotine 

Pvt. Ltd. 

A.R.B. 

A'bad 

993.74  The   case   is   filed

against the Bank for

non-submission   of

export bills and non-

releasing   of   the

sanctioned limits. We

have taken plea that

since the borrower is

not clearing the dues

of   the   Bank,   Bank

has not released the

export   bills   as   per

procedure of UCPDC

rules."

In  ‘Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam versus State of A.P.

2009(2) RCR(Criminal) 860’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

25. The High Court was justified in holding that disputed

questions of fact are involved and the application under section

482 of Code has been rightly rejected. We do not find any scope

for interference with the order of the High Court. However, we

make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

In  ‘Ashfaq Ahmed Qurereshi and another vesus Namrata

Chopra and others 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 528’,  the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:-

4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the

property belonged not only to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, but

they were the owners alongwith respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The

respondent No. 3 has died and respondent No. 4 has been

deleted from the array of parties by this court earlier. There is

ample evidence on record that the permission had been sought

and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for raising

the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had

been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4

might have forged their signatures for the reason that it is not

their case in the counter affidavit or even before the High Court

that they had ever raised any objection or filed any complaint

before the police or any competent court for forging their

signatures by someone else on the said application. More so,

there are disputes regarding partition and demarcation of

shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds are also

on record that their shares have been sold not only by

respondent Nos. 3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos. 1 & 2

subsequently and there is no land available today. No

explanation could be furnished by Mr. Prashant Kumar

appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why this fact had not

been brought to the notice of the court.

5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of

fact, we are of the considered opinion that there was no

occasion for the High Court to allow the petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings qua the said

respondents.

In  ‘Rishipal   Singh   versus   State   of   U.P.   and   another   2014(3)

RCR(Criminal) 637’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.

Biological E. Ltd. and Others, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 122 :

2000 (3) SCC 269, has discussed at length about the scope and

ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be.

We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that

judgement, which reads:

"Exercise   of   jurisdiction   under   inherent   power   as

envisaged   in   section  482  of   the   Code   to   have   the

complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception

rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial

stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to

scuttle   the   prosecution   with   the   lodgement   of   First

Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth

the   law   takes   it's   own   course   and   the   investigation

ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The

jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it's

undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In

the   event,   however,   the   Court   on   a   perusal   of   the

complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations

levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it

does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there

ought   not   to   be   any   hesitation   to   rise   up   to   the

expectation of the people and deal with the situations as

is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to

be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a

legal process and such an investigation ought not to be

allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the

concept of justice, which is paramount".

12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the

guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,

1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this

Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under

Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or

the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central

Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.,

1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 60 : 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh

Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 160 :

1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.

v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 937 :

(2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

observed that:

"The power under section 482 of the Code should be used

sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court,

but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no

two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained

judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would

lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under

section  482  of   the   Code   must   be   exercised   and

proceedings must be quashed". Also see Om Prakash and

Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 662 :

2012(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 127 : 2012 (12)

SCC 72.

What emerges from the above judgments is that when a

prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests

to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted

allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the

case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the

complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether

continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage

of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that

quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of

justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the

Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the

complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but

it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into

the disputed questions of fact.

In ‘Tilly Gifford versus Michael Floyd Eshwar & Anr. 2018(1)

RCR (Criminal) 350’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

4. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on

21.05.2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far

beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of

such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in

numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and

again, it has been emphasised by this Court that the power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not permit the High

Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the

defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal

proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare.

Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by

clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law.

In   ‘Ravi   Karumabaiah   versus   State   and   Anr.   2015(37)

RCR(Criminal) 751’, the Delhi High Court held as under:-

19. As alleged by the petitioner, there are disputed questions of

facts which can be considered by learned Trial Court during

trial. The petitioner will get the liberty to defend his case, but at

this stage the trial cannot be stopped by quashing the

proceedings, as sought by petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner

has failed to establish any illegality or perversity in the orders

passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional

Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr P C of this Court.

9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that an FIR

and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom can be quashed where a

bare perusal of the FIR and the uncontroverted allegations do not constitute

an offence or where the allegations levelled are completely absurd and

improbable on the face of it.   The defence of the accused and disputed

questions of fact cannot be examined in proceedings under the 482 Cr.P.C.

(528 of BNSS, 2023)

10. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the report under

Section 193 BNSS (Annexure P-2) would  prima facie establish that the

petitioner was holding an Allotment card for Plots No.38-39.  However, as

per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Section 180 of BNSS, 2023) of

Mehar Chand (Annexure P-4), Plot No.37-38 had been allotted to his wife.

It has been found during investigation that the allotment in the name of the

petitioner was not issued by the Society’s office.  The petitioner had

obtained an electricity connection based on forged documents.  The defence

of the petitioner that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration or that the

plot was allocated to him as the original Society ceased to be in existence are

matters of his defence and cannot be examined in a petition under Section

528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.). He seems to be the part of a land mafia which

includes senior police officials as well and provisions of the Prevention of

Corruption Act have also been invoked.  Therefore, a bare perusal of the

report under Section 193 BNS, 2023 cannot lead to the conclusion that the

uncontroverted allegations levelled in the said report do not reveal the

commission of any offence by the petitioner.

11. The upshot of the aforementioned discussion is that as an

offence stands prima facie established from the report under Section 193

BNS (173 Cr.P.C.) (Annexure P-2), the question of quashing of FIR No.491

dated 18.07.2024 under Sections 318(4), 351(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023

registered at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar (Annexure P-1)

alongwith   all   consequential   proceedings   including   Final   Report   under

Section 197 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 173 Cr.P.C.) dated 19.10.2024 wherein

during   the   investigation   Sections   111(2)(b),   308(2),   338,   336(3),   340,

238(b), 215 and Section 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure P-2) does not arise.

12. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

13.  The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.   

September 09, 2025    ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

sukhpreet   JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable :  Yes/No