CRM-M/36875/2026 of JAGJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 10 July 2026

IN

Jagjeet Sing

State of Pun

CORAM: H

Present:

Shalini Sing

under Section

2. Gurcharan S demarcation revenue esta police assist 03.11.2019, Tehsildar, Ja police Statio proceedings demarcation, members alo unknown per 875-2026 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA gh and others

VERSUS njab and another

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAL Mr. Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advoca Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Pu

**** gh Nagpal, J. (Oral) Petitioners seek quashing of F ns 353, 186 of IPC, Police Statio Case was registered on compl Singh, who submitted that h of Khasra No.1664, a non cult ate of Jaito, Tehsil Jaito, Distr tance which was provided to c revenue Patwari of Halqa Jait aito, reached the spot to carry ou n, Jaito had also arrived with th were conducted peacefully. Wh , Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh son o ong with Sardul Singh residen rsons arrived at the spot, started

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH CRM-M-36875-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:10.07.2026

…Petitioners

...Respondents LINI SINGH NAGPAL ate for the petitioners. unjab. FIR No.0102 dated 24.07.2020, on Jaiton, District Faridkot. laint of Gurpash Singh son of he moved an application for tivable pathway, situated in the rict Faridkot and requested for carry out the demarcation. On to-2, Halqa Kanungo and Naib ut the demarcation. Police from hem to ensure that demarcation hen the said officials started the of Gurcharan Singh, their family nt of Kasam Bhatti and 25-30 d a quarrel and created a ruckus.

)

s s , f r e r n b m n e y

. KAPIL

They stoppe abusive lang that they wou if the demarc

3. falsely lodge demarcation civil and crim criminal case Thereafter, th favour vide j fresh demar litigation and the police off and fabricate which was an

4. proceedings charge-sheet exercising in expected to preliminary s a mini trial w 482 Cr.P.C. powers under 875-2026 (O&M) ed the officials who were cond uage and made obstruction in d uld not let demarcation happen cation was carried out. Legal act Learned counsel for the petitio ed at the instance of responde of Khasra No.1664 had already minal proceedings. Petitioner N e vide judgment dated 17.07.20 he civil suit filed by the petitio udgment and decree dated 18.10 rcation proceedings, withholdin d result of earlier litigation. Ne fficials lodged any complaint and ed version of respondent No.2. n abuse of process of the Court b Exercise of power under Section is warranted only when the alle do not disclose the ingredients nherent powers under Section weigh evidence or assess t stage. Engaging in such an exerc which is not permissible. Quashi is an exception rather than the r Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be e ducting the demarcation used demarcation proceedings saying and also extended threats to kill tion was prayed for. oners submits that the FIR was ent No.2, despite the fact that y been subject matter of earlier No.1 was acquitted in the earlier 024 which had attained finality. oners was also decreed in their 0.2024. Respondent No.2 sought ng and concealing the earlier ither the revenue authorities nor d prosecution was based on false He, thus, submits that the FIR, be quashed. n 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal egations made in the FIR or the of the offence(s) alleged. While 482 Cr.P.C., this court is not the veracity of allegations at cise would amount to conducting ing of FIR, by invoking Section e ordinary rule and the inherent exercised with much caution and

d g l s t r r . r t r r e , l e e t t g n t d KAPIL

circumspecti the Court can

5. of Khasra N 06.12.2018, titled ‘Jagjit aid of the pe pertains to a their duty as discharging h be examined commission on record, i petitioners ar

6. v. State (Gov “It is a quashi conduc eviden exercis 875-2026 (O&M) on. There are 3 circumstances u n be exercised.

i. To give effect to an order unde

ii. To prevent abuse of the proce

iii. Otherwise secure ends of jus The culmination of the prior lit N.1664, judgment of acquittal in Annexure P-2, the judgment Singh and another vs. Gurpash etitioner since the FIR, lodged u assault/criminal force to a publ s public servants with the intent his duties. The correctness of th d in the case when contents of cognizable offences. On the it cannot be held that the cri re attended with mala fide and ar Following observations of Hon’ vt. of NCT) Delhi, 2003 SCC(C a firmly established principle that ing under Section 482 of the Cr cting a mini-trial or undertakin nce. The inherent power to quas ised only in rare and exceptiona under which inherent powers of er the Court. ess of Court. stice. tigation relating to demarcation n case vide FIR No. 171 dated in civil suit No.CIS/186/2019 Singh’ cannot be brought to the under Sections 353, 186 of IPC ic servants in the execution of t to prevent or deter them from he allegations in the FIR cannot thereof prima facie disclose e basis of the judgments placed iminal proceedings against the re liable to be quashed. ’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Cri)2016, would be relevant:- at, while examining a petition for rpc, the court must refrain from ng a detailed evaluation of the sh criminal proceedings is to be al circumstances, such as where

f n d e C f m t e d e l r m e e e KAPIL

the alle or fail on its f approp continu interlo the inv justice

7. The ca down by Hon’ble S Bhajan Lal and Ot The petition is, ther

8. Pendin

10.07.2026 Kapil 875-2026 (O&M) legations in the FIR are patently to disclose any cognizable offen face, discloses the basic ingredie priate course is to allow the proc nue, rather than prematurely ter ocutory stage. Interference at thi vestigative process but also def e.” ase of the petitioner does not Supreme Court in State of Hary thers, 1992 AIR 604 and it is not refore, dismissed. ng miscellaneous applications, if

Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable :

y absurd, inherently improbable, nce. When the FIR or complaint, ients of a cognizable offence, the cess of investigation and trial to rminating the prosecution at an his stage would not only impede feat the very object of criminal fall within the parameters laid yana and Others vs. Chaudhary t a fit case for quashing the FIR. f any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

, t, e o n e l d y .

) KAPIL