Parkash Singh Marwah vs State Of Ut, Chandigarh And Ors

CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Date of Decision : 09.12.2025

Parkash Singh Marwah ......Petitioner Versus

State of UT Chandigarh and others

...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Hardial Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Addl. P.P. for UT Chandigarh.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

For the quashing of FIR No.26 dated 19.05.2024, Police Station

Sector-49, UT Chandigarh the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, vested

by virtue of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023,

hereinafter being referred to as 'BNSS', has been invoked.

2. Succinctly, the facts emerging from record are that the above

mentioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ASI 'Ajit Singh' who had

reported that on 18.05.2024 at about 6.40 P.M. he along with Constable

'Yogesh' was present at the crossing of roads heading towards Sectors-

45/46/49/50 Chandigarh. According to above named police officer, there they

spotted a Scorpio car whose front number plate was not properly visible, as

few digits of the same were covered by a cloth. It was further reported by the

above named police officer that a signal to stop the car was given to the driver

of the above said car, but the car driver instead of stopping the car at the

1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:29 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 2

intersection stopped it beyond the 'Zebra' crossing, and when constable

'Yogesh' started videography of the above mentioned car No.CH-01CT-2486

its driver alighted from the car and upon demand for his driving licence, he

refused to provide the same.

3. According to above named police officer, the car driver

introducing himself as Judicial Magistrate, namely 'Parkash', and that in order

to confirm the above said fact when it was asked again from the above said

driver as to whether he was a Magistrate or not, he nodded in affirmative. It

was further reported by the above named police officer, that when the licence

was demanded from him he fled from the spot by speeding-up his vehicle. As

per report the matter was reported to the Senior Police Officers and when the

particulars of the above mentioned vehicle were verified it was found that the

car did not belong to a Magistrate. It was also reported by the above named

police officer that on the front windshield of the car the sticker of Judge was

affixed, and that the driver of the car had also misbehaved with constable

'Yogesh' and obstructed him from discharging his official duty.

4. It is case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned

report formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken-up. As

per prosecution, during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging

that the petitioner is a budding lawyer hailing from a reputed family, and that

he has a good academic record. According to petitioner, the petitioner had a

fascination for social service, and that inspired by the above mentioned

ideology he used to highlight the lapses of the Administration, and for that

2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 3

purpose even filed various complaints. It has been further alleged that few of

the complaints were filed by him against the inaction of Chandigarh

Administration also, such as Annexures P-2 and P-3, and that the Annexure P-

2 was a complaint against one D.S.P of Traffic Police, i.e. the respondent No.4.

6. In the present petition it has been alleged that on account of above

mentioned complaints moved by the petitioner, the entire Chandigarh Police

started nursing grudge against the petitioner and became inimical, and they

hatched a conspiracy to implicate the petitioner in a non-bailable offence and

that the case in hand has been filed in execution of abovesaid design. The

petitioner has claimed that the allegations contained in the FIR are false.

7. With regard to incident in question it has been alleged by the

petitioner that on 18.05.2024 at about 6.30 P.M. when the petitioner along with

his old aged ailing mother was crossing the above mentioned intersection, he

was abruptly stopped by the respondents No.5 and 6, and that with a motive to

fulfill the illegal design of implicating the petitioner in a false case, the above

said story has been concocted with regard to traffic violations and obstruction

in discharge of duty of a police official, by the petitioner. It has been alleged

by the petitioner that at the time of above mentioned incident the police

officers were not in uniform, and that against the abovesaid conduct an

objection was raised by the petitioner which has been given a colour of

obstruction in discharge of duty. According to petitioner, surprisingly after

two days, i.e. on 20.05.2024, at about 3.00 P.M, when the petitioner was busy

in his work, he was illegally arrested by the police, and only then he came to

know about the present FIR. While claiming that the above mentioned FIR is

3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 4

nothing but an abuse of process of law, the quashing of the same has been

sought.

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an

altogether false story with regard to obstruction in the discharge of duty and

cheating by impersonation has been cooked-up against the petitioner out of

vengeance. As per learned counsel for the petitioner neither there is any

substance in the above mentioned allegations nor any reliable evidence is

available, and that filing of above mentioned FIR against the petitioner, is

nothing but misuse of authority by the police department. As per learned

counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution of petitioner is nothing but an abuse

of process of law which needs intervention and exercise of extraordinary

jurisdiction by this Court.

10. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated up by the respondents

are otherwise illegal in view of the fact that the FIR for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 186 IPC has been lodged which is not

permissible under the law. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in the case of

'Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1998(1) CLR 63', wherein it has been

observed that Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. bars the jurisdiction of this Court for

taking cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC, except upon a

complaint in writing of a public servant concerned, or his superior officer. In

the above mentioned case, it has also been observed that the offences under

Sections 332 and 353 IPC are closely inter-woven with offence under Section

4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 5

186 IPC, and that if the facts of the case giving rise to the offences are not

capable of being split apart, the Court is not entitled to take cognizance of the

offence under Sections 332 and 353 IPC also.

11. Similar view has been taken by the High court of Madhya Pradesh

in the case of 'Ashok and others Vs. The State, 1987 CRI. L.J. 1750' wherein

it has been observed that underlying purpose behind the provision of Section

195(1)(a)(i) seems to be to check misuse of the machinery of criminal

prosecution by unconcerned persons on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient

grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass their opponents.

12. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the harassment being faced by the petitioner is so strong that the petitioner,

who is a person of sensitive nature, could not ignore the same and therefore, he

suffered depression and therefore, forced to go for treatment. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner counselling sessions of the petitioner are

going on which shows that he is yet to recover. While referring to the

principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

'Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2018 Supreme Court

3093', the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of

above mentioned mental state the petitioner is entitled to immunity provided

under Section 84 IPC.

13. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the cases of 'State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

Suppl. (1) SCC 335', 'R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 Supreme

Court 866' and 'Gian Singh VS. State of Punjab (2012) 10 Supreme Court

5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 6

Cases 303', the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for quashing of

present FIR.

14. Per contra, the learned State counsel has come forward with the

plea that allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature as he, on

checking for traffic violations by a police officer, introduced himself to be

Judicial Magistrate and tried to take undue advantage of the position by

impersonating himself as a member of judicial fraternity. According to learned

State counsel, in addition to above, the petitioner also obstructed a public

servant from discharging his duty as a police officer, and thus, the FIR has

been rightly lodged against the petitioner. As per learned State counsel the

petitioner is being prosecuted for the misdeeds committed by him only and not

out of any vengeance etc.

15. With regard to application of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. it has been

alleged by the learned State counsel that the above mentioned bar is not

attracted in the present case, as one of the offence committed by the petitioner

is the offence under Section 419 IPC for which the bar under Section 195(1)

Cr.P.C. does not come in the way.

16. With regard to plea of protection enshrined under Section 84 IPC,

the learned State counsel has contended that there is no plea of the petitioner

that he was suffering from any such ailment at the time of commission of

offence. The learned State counsel has further contended that if the petitioner

wants to raise a plea that he is not fit for trial due to his mental state

subsequent to the commission of offence, he can take such plea before the

learned trial Court only. As per learned State counsel the quashing of FIR on

the above mentioned ground is not permissible.

6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 7

17. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that video footage of the entire incident is available and will be proved in the

learned trial Court at appropriate stage during the course of trial. The learned

State counsel has contended that afraid of the fact that he may not wriggle-out

of the consequences of his act which has been duly recorded in the camera, the

petitioner has resorted to present petition on false grounds. The learned State

counsel has urged for dismissal of present petition.

18. In support of his argument, the leaned State counsel has referred

to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of 'Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and

others 2021 SCC Online SC 315'.

19. The record has been perused carefully.

20. In the present case the contents of the petition shows that there are

three points which needs determination:

i) whether the petition is liable to be quashed on the ground that false story has been projected by the police in the FIR;

ii) whether the bar enshrined under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. is applicable in the present case;

iii) whether the petitioner is entitled to claim immunity as prescribed under Section 84 of IPC.

Point No.1

21. As far as the first point of determination is concerned at the very

outset, it is pertinent to mention here that there are very specific, categorical

and prominent allegations against the petitioner that when two police officers

were discharging their duty at the intersection of Sectors 45/46/49/50 the

petitioner violated traffic rules, and when he was asked to show his driving

licence, instead of showing his driving licence firstly, he tried to overawe the

7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 8

police officers by projecting himself to be a Judicial Magistrate and when he

failed in doing so, and the police officers continued to insist for his driving

licence, he drove away from the spot against the instructions of police officers,

and thus, he committed the above mentioned offence.

22. With regard to above mentioned contents of the FIR the plea of

the petitioner is that a false story has been cooked-up by the police as the

petitioner has been complaining against the misdeeds of Senior police officers

and other officers of the UT Administration. However, qua abovementioned

stand of the petitioner this fact cannot be ignored that his presence, on the spot,

while driving his car, is an admitted fact and therefore, the controversy to be

determined in the trial would be as to whether the version projected by the

production is true or the version of petitioner.

23. As far as the above mentioned allegations and counter allegations

are concerned the most significant fact qua abovesaid allegations is that

without proper appreciation of evidence, to be adduced at the time of trial, it is

not possible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether which of the two stories is

true.

24. As far as the present petition is concerned in order to decide the

same in view of the grounds taken thereunder the assessment of fact-situation

pleaded in the present petition is essential, and the assessment of such fact-

situation cannot be made unless the parties are given opportunity to lead their

respective evidence. Thus, the determination of above mentioned fact-

situation in the quashing petition without proper evidence is likely to result

into miscarriage of justice.

8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 9

25. With regard to abovementioned point of determination the guiding

principles, wherein extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR can be

exercised, have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of 'Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra)'. Those guidelines are as

under:

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in

Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable

offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable

offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any

kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court

will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with

circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare

cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of

death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is

sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial

stage;

9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 10

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than

an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction

of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two

specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the

other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are

complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result

in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process

should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an

arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims

or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must

disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress,

the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the

FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It

would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy

facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated

or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After

investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no

substance in the application made by the complainant, the

investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary

10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 11

before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the

learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but

conferment of wide power requires the court to be more

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the

court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard

being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint

imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by

this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal

(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged

accused and the court when it exercises the power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the

allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable

offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits

whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a

cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating

agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the

aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High

Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim

order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the

11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 12

quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an

interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually

and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in

progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material

is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain

itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no

coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be

relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438

Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not

and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest

and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till

the investigation is completed and/or till the final

report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while

dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the

opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim

stay of further investigation, after considering the broad

parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief

reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is

required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application

of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what

12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 13

was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim

order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no

coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters,

the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive

steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be

adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be

misunderstood and/or misapplied."

26. In addition to above, In the case of 'Bhajan Lal (supra)', the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on the

question of quashing of FIR has laid down that the FIR can be quashed in the

following circumstances:-

a) 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.

b) 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.

c) 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

13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 14

out a case against the accused.

d) 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

27. Similarly in the case of 'Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. State of

Karnataka', Criminal Appeal No.4728 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 15

India has ruled that police investigation should be allowed to proceed unless

exceptional circumstances warrant intervention. According to Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India the High Court should not interfere with the

investigation when allegations in FIR disclose cognizable offences.

28. In the case of 'M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.'

2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 175, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled

that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly in the 'rarest

of rare cases'. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allegations in FIR or

complaint must be taken at face value and accepted in their entirety to assess

whether they disclose a cognizable offence.

29. In the case of 'Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)' Criminal

Appeal No.4752 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the

Court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing and that

quashing of FIR should be an exception and exercised sparingly in rarest of

rare cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further held that Courts

cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of

allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

30. In view of above mentioned observations it is hereby held that on

this ground the petition is not liable to be quashed.

Point No.2:

31. As far as this point of determination is concerned, at the very

outset, it is pertinent to mention here that allegations contained in the present

petition are comprised of set of two facts. One fact is with regard to

commission of offences punishable under Sections 170/419 IPC and the

15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 16

another one is for the commission of offence punishable under Section 186

IPC.

32. As far as the offences punishable under Sections 170/419 IPC are

concerned the bar of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. are not attracted, but of course, as

per settled principles of law and the statutory provisions the above said bar is

applicable with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 186

IPC.

33. In view of the fact that the above mentioned two types of offence

allegedly committed by the petitioner are independent of each other and

capable of splitting, it is hereby held that the prosecution of petitioner under

Sections 170/419 IPC on the basis of FIR cannot held to be defective.

34. However, with regard to plea that that bar enshrined under Section

195(1) Cr.P.C. is applicable for an offence under Section 186 IPC, it is

relevant to note that the proper course available to the petitioner is to raise the

above said plea before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge.

In my opinion the quashing of FIR on the above mentioned grounds is not

permissible. Here it is also relevant to mention that the offences committed by

the petitioner being capable of splitting the principles of law laid down in the

case of 'Ram Kumar (supra)' and 'Ashok (supra)' are not of any help for the

petitioner.

35. In view of above mentioned observations the point of

determination No.2, too, is hereby answered against the petitioner.

Point No.3:

36. As far as this point of determination is concerned in view of the

16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 ::: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M) 17

fact that the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to immunity under

Section 84 IPC is related to the dates subsequent to the commission of alleged

offence, it is hereby observed that the petitioner who has not claimed that at

the time of commission of offence he was entitled for such immunity, cannot

seek quashing of FIR on the above mentioned grounds.

37. It is, also relevant to note that if the petitioner claims that trial

against him cannot proceed due to his above mentioned incapacity, such plea

can be raised by the petitioner before the learned trial Court during the course

of trial only. The filing of petition for quashing of FIR on the above

mentioned grounds, is not permissible.

38. Hence, this point of determination, too, is hereby answered

accordingly against the petitioner.

39. In view of findings returned on the above mentioned three points

of determination it is hereby held that no ground for quashing of FIR, as

claimed by the petitioner is made out and the present petition being devoid of

merit deserves dismissal. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed

accordingly.

40. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 09.12.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

17 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-12-2025 01:29:30 :::