V/S v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Anr.

Judgment

#1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 199 dated

28.06.2020 under Sections 323, 341, 482, 186, 188, 269, 270, 506, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 06.01.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi.

#2. Complainant Inder Sandhu, District Animal Welfare Officer, Animal Welfare Board of India reported on 27.06.2026 that he received information from PFA office regarding cruelty against stray dogs in Gulmohar City, Derabassi. He was asked to investigate the case. On reaching the society, at about 5.45 pm, he spoke to the guard and was told that the guards had turned off the street light at 11.00 PM. He spoke to Ishwar who informed that he

was told by Mr. Rajiv, Electrician to turn off the light. Thereafter he went to the Society office to meet the Electrician. The Electrician informed him that he was instructed by Board of CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 2 Directors’ member Govind Chaudhary s/o Prithviraj to turn off the lights. Thereafter, a gentleman at the office called Mr. Rajiv (President). He went to the house of Mr. Govind, spoke to him about the issue and was asked to come to the society office. Mr. Govind told him that although he had sent text messages in the group, that was a while ago. Regarding beating a dog, he stated that he was not involved. When asked, the society women gathered around the gate and blocked it in the night of 26th June. He stated that he could do nothing about it. Mr. Govind was asked whether he had understanding of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and provisions for the animals, to which he replied in negative. He explained to him the entire law and Supreme Court ABC guidelines. Complainant further stated that before he could conclude investigation, he was gheraoed by approximately 50 residents and not allowed to leave. The second accused, Mr. Rajiv was there but he did not get the opportunity to investigate him independently. At the police station, both he and Mr. Govind, besides several residents claimed that they would continue beating and dislocating stray dogs from the society. He further stated that upon reaching the society, he was not stopped by the Guard at the gate. When he asked to speak to Mr. Govind Chaudhary at his residence, he directed him to speak at the office. Upon reaching society office, he started investigation. He told that he would talk to him at will and was under no force to answer his questions. At the office, there were about 25-30 people. When he started CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 3 investigation, he was interrupted several times by the residents. At this time, other accused came to the office and started calling other residents to come and confront him. Another gentleman called a woman to the office to cover the phone in the video. In a few minutes, there was a pandemonium in the hall with people not wearing masks. They offered to talk to him in another room adjacent to the hall, which was 10x12 feet. Within a minute, there were about 30 people in the room and they started of by yelling at him in close proximity and pushed him into a corner. This was further instigated by Mr. Govind and Mr. Rajiv, claiming that he had asked for a bribe from them. This instigated the crowd even more. He started dialing the police for back up support and made repeated calls, but the police took about 45 minutes to reach. In the meantime, he was attacked by the mob. Miss Dolly (w/o Mohd. Mansur House No. 31, C-3) slapped him and his glasses fell off. They also tried to snatch his phone and threw it on the floor. When he told them he wanted to leave, they said he could not leave and would have to take all the dogs with him. Finally, the police came and he was taken to the police station. He was dealing with the angry mob in the police station for five more hours. He was an officer of the Government of India, on duty, doing investigation and was captured and held captive by residents of the society at the instigation of Govind Chaudhary and Rajiv Rai. Everyone kept saying that they would not allow him to leave the complex. He was beaten up and intimidated. Those persons systematically called the residents to mob up against him. Rupika Singh was with him and CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 4 she too was threatened and pushed by Dolly and Mrs. Darshan Kaur (w/o Narinder Pal #C-17). He had to protect her by standing in front of her to prevent the mob from causing any harm. Registration of FIR was prayed for.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1-Rajiv Mohan Rai @ Rajiv, who was President of Residents Welfare Association/Board of Directors (BOD) of Gulmohar City Society, Derabsssi while petitioner No. 2-Mr. Govind Chaudhary, was member of the Board of Directors (BOD) of the Society. Respondent No. 2, who claimed to be District Animal Welfare Officer, Animal Welfare Board of India, visited the society in connection with complaint relating to cruelty against stray dogs. FIR was registered on the allegations that residents of the society gathered in the society office and did not allow him to leave the premises. In fact, complainant visited the society and failed to conduct himself lawfully. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against some of the accused, but no involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence was found. Their names were not included in the charge sheet and were mentioned in Column No. 2 as “proposed accused”. Learned trial Court, however, erroneously summoned the petitioners under Section 358 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as additional accused. The summoning order dated 06.01.2026 was illegal, unjust and unfair, as there was no substantial evidence against the petitioners. Deposition of the complainant was a mere repetition of the FIR version. Petitioners were arrayed as accused CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 5 only for the reason that they were holding the posts of General Secretary and President of the Society. No evidence was found against them during investigation. Even if bald deposition of complainant was taken as true, no more than prima facie was made out against the petitioners. Allegations against the petitioners were general, omnibus, without any specific role attributed. It is thus prayed that the subject FIR and summoning order dated

06.01.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi be quashed, in the interest of justice.

#4. Law is fairly well settled that inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable or fail to disclose any cognizable offence. While examining the FIR/complaint, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. If a prima facie case is made out, disclosing the ingredients of the offence(s) alleged against the accused, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. At this stage, the Court must believe the averments and the allegations in the complaint to be true and correct [Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC Online SC 983 and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401].

#5. In “Hira Lal V. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi” 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 6 “It is a firmly established principle that, while examining a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court must refrain from conducting a mini-trial or undertaking a detailed evaluation of the evidence. The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations in the FIR are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or fail to disclose any cognizable offence. When the FIR or complaint, in its face, discloses the basic ingredients of a cognizable offence, the appropriate course is to allow the process of investigation and trial to continue, rather than prematurely terminating the prosecution at an interlocutory stage. Interference at this stage would not only impede the investigative process but also defeat the very object of criminal justice.”

#6. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 AIR 604 and it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences by petitioners.

#7. Coming to impugned order dated 06.01.2026 summoning the petitioners to face trial, version of PW-1 Inder Sandhu, in his examination-in-chief is almost accurate reproduction of his first statement which forms the basis of the FIR. Relevant extract from the examination-in-chief is reproduced as under: “At the office there were about 25-30 people there. When I started doing the investigation, I was CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 7 interrupted several times by the residents. At this time the other accused had come to the office and started calling other residents to come and confront me. Another older gentleman can be heard calling the women to come to the office over the phone. Within a few minutes there was pandemonium in the hall with people not wearing mask and yelling. They offered for me to talk to the other persons in another room, this smaller room adjacent to the hall is about 10x12 feet. Within a minutes, there were about 30 people who were in the room and they started off by yelling at me and pushing me and forcing me to move into a corner. This was further instigated by Mr. Govind and Mr. Rajiv claiming that I had asked for a bribe from them. This served to instigate the crowd even further. At that point, I started yelling the police for back up support. I made repeated calls to the police. I took the police 45 minutes to get there. In the meantime, I was attacked by the mob Ms. Dolly slapped me and my glasses fell off. When I told them I want to leave and when we hd stopped recording, they told me that I cannot leave and will have to take all the dogs with me. Finally, when the police came, I was taken into the police in their protection. I was there, one another person Rupika Singh was with me during the entire incident and she was threatened and pushed to by Ms. Dolly and Mrs. Darshana Kaur. I had to protect her by standing in CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 8 front of her to avoid the mob from causing any harm to her.”

#8. A five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, has laid down the principles relating to exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under: “105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

#106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross- Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 9 absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”

#9. Petitioner Rajiv Mohan Rai @ Rajiv is the President of Gulmohar City, Residents Welfare Association and petitioner- Govnid Chaudhary is a member thereof. Names of both petitioners have figured from the very initial stage and specific roles have been attributed to them which form a part of chain of events resulting in the commission of offence alleged. Respondent No. 2 met them both on reaching Gulmohar City, in connection with investigation of cruelty case against stray dogs and while the investigation was in progress, he alleged that 30 persons in a small room measuring 10x12 feet, on the instigation of the petitioners, yelled at him, pushed him, forced him into a corner, attacked him and tried to snatch his phone. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were found innocent during the course of investigation and were placed in column No. 2 of the challan, further that allegations against them were omnibus, CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 10 general. without any specific role does not carry any conviction in view of observations of the Apex Court in Omi Vs. State of M.P (2025) 2 SCC 621. In that case, the law with respect to Section 319 Cr.P.C. was reiterated and summarized in the following terms: “19. The principles of law as regards Section 319 of the CrPC may be summarized as under:

19.1 On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.

19.2 The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

19.3 The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 11 by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.

19.4 It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.”

#10. Thus, while considering an application under Section 348 BNSS, the Court is not to be swayed by the police investigation or opinion of Investigating Officer in the charge sheet. What is relevant is the evidence of the complainant in the case. In the case in hand, a bare reading of examination-in-chief of CRM-M-36773-2026 (O&M) 12 the complainant, on record as Annexure P-3, would be sufficient to hold that more than a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. Finding of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi that role of the petitioners in actuating and instigating the residents to restrain and attack the complainant was evident and visible and that version of the complainant remained consistent throughout, is based on sound and correct appreciation. The summoning order dated 06.01.2026, thus, does not call for interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

#11. The petition, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.

#12. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

13.07.2026 Ajay Goswami (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No