CRM-M No. 36365 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973),

invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 549 dated 06.12.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 338 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar (Annexure P-1), which came to be registered on the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2-Mohini Kanta, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

#2. Succinctly put, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Mohini Kanta, widow of Late Sh. Durga Charan Attri, alleging that her daughters, Kavita Sharma and Babita Sharma, in connivance with Sanjeev Kumar (husband of Kavita Sharma), removed gold ornaments, cash and other valuable documents from her residence after the demise of her husband. It is further alleged that, while the deceased was admitted at Aggarwal Nursing Home, Kurukshetra, and was on ventilator support on 02.04.2025, the accused procured a forged Will by obtaining his thumb impression and thereafter relied upon the same to obstruct the complainant's access to the joint bank account, thereby causing her financial loss and mental harassment. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present FIR and all consequential proceedings constitute a gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the Will in question was validly executed by the father of the petitioners and that the petitioners have already instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding its genuineness, which is presently pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. It is, therefore, argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings on the same set of allegations amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi and Others v. Balram and Another, AIR 2025 SC 3526. CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:3:-

#4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the paper-book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance.

#5. A perusal of the judgment in Urmila Devi and Others (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, reveals that the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from those of the present case. In Urmila Devi and Others (supra), the initial police investigation culminated in the recommendation of a cancellation report, and only thereafter was a private complaint instituted, pursuant to which the accused were summoned to face trial. The said factual matrix is materially different from the circumstances obtaining in the present case. It is trite that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously, and the mere pendency of a civil suit does not, by itself, constitute a legal bar to the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings.

5.1. In the present case, the prosecution specifically alleges that the Will was purportedly executed at a time when the father of the petitioners was on ventilator support, as reflected in the contemporaneous medical record. The FIR contains categorical allegations that the Will is forged and fabricated, thereby disclosing disputed questions of fact requiring a thorough investigation. It cannot, therefore, be said that the FIR fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, or that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence, or are so inherently improbable or absurd as to warrant interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the case of the petitioners does not fall within any of the well-settled parameters enunciated by the CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:4:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383, for exercise of jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: :- “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series 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 exercised 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. CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:5:-

#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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

#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.

#108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:6:- as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

#6. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in exceptional cases, the expression "rarest of rare" being employed in a context distinct from that governing the imposition of capital punishment.

6.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is not expected to enter into disputed questions of fact or adjudicate upon the correctness, reliability or genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR or complaint. At such stage, the Court cannot examine the defence available to the accused, undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial. Interference would be justified only where the case unmistakably falls within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal (supra). CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:7:-

#7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down in Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra) or M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) so as to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, there is no material to prima facie indicate that the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide, frivolous, vexatious, or actuated by an ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law. On the contrary, the allegations contained therein disclose the commission of cognizable offences, thereby necessitating a fair, impartial and complete investigation. Judicial interdiction at this incipient stage would, therefore, be wholly unwarranted.

#8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated so as to justify interference with the impugned criminal proceedings at this stage. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

8.1. It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded herein are confined exclusively to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed independently and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order. CRM-M-36365-2026 (O&M) -:8:-

#9. In view of the final disposal of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No further orders are required to be passed in that regard.

08.07.2026 Gaurav Sorot ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No