| |
CDJ 2026 PHC 018
|
| Court : High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Case No : CRM-M-No. 3249 of 2026 (O&M) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU |
| Parties : Shaukat Azad & Another Versus State of Haryana & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: M.D. Khan & Ashif Kamal, Advocates. For the Respondents: -----. |
| Date of Judgment : 23-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 PHHC 010112,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 34, 406, 420 and 506 IPC
2. Catch Words:
- Quashing of FIR
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Abuse of process of law
- Delay in framing charge
- Cheating
- Criminal breach of trust
- Alternative remedy
- Pending charge
3. Summary:
The petitioners Shaukat Azad and Khalil Azad filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0348 dated 08.05.2018, which alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, and related offences. They argued that the dispute was civil, the FIR was lodged after undue delay, and continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. The State contended that investigation was complete, the case was pending on charge, and any delay was due to absent co‑accused. The Court observed that Section 482 jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only where the FIR is patently baseless or the proceedings amount to abuse of process. Since the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and the matter was at the charge‑framing stage, the petitioners had an effective remedy before the trial court. Consequently, no ground existed to invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely Shaukat Azad and Khalil Azad, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0348 dated 08.05.2018, registered under Sections 34, 406, 420 and 506 IPC at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, along with the final report and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the facts as borne out from the petition are that the complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle through certain intermediaries and paid a substantial amount towards the sale consideration. Subsequently, it was alleged that the vehicle in question was found to be a stolen property and the complainant was cheated of his money. The FIR came to be registered after some delay. During the course of investigation, the petitioners joined the investigation and were granted bail. A final report has already been presented before the trial Court.
3. The petitioners contend that the dispute is purely civil in nature, that there is no specific role attributed to them and the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay, and that continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings has been prayed for.
4. Notice of Motion
5. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and opposed the present petition. It was submitted that the investigation has already culminated in the presentation of the final report and the case is presently fixed for consideration on charge. It was further contended that the charge could not be framed earlier as some of the co-accused remained absent, on account of which proceedings for declaring them proclaimed offenders were initiated, resulting in delay. It was argued that the matter is now pending before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge and the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to raise all permissible pleas before the learned Magistrate.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record with their assistance.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in those cases where continuation of the proceedings would amount to a patent abuse of the process of law or where the FIR, on its face, does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
8. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie reflects allegations relating to cheating and criminal breach of trust. The veracity of the allegations, the role attributed to each accused, and the nature of the transaction cannot be gone into at this stage.
9. Merely because the charge has not yet been framed would not, by itself, entitle the petitioners to seek quashing of the FIR. The delay in framing of charge, as explained by the State, on account of absence of co-accused and initiation of proceedings against them, cannot be said to vitiate the criminal proceedings at this stage.
10. It is well settled that when the case is pending at the stage of consideration on charge, the accused has an efficacious remedy to raise all legal and factual pleas before the trial Court.
This Court does not find it appropriate to cut short the statutory 11. Procedure by invoking inherent jurisdiction, particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved.
12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR or the proceedings arising therefrom.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
14. However, it is clarified that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all available pleas, in accordance with law, before the learned trial Court at the time of consideration on charge.
15. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
|
| |
