Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial or Assess Veracity of FIR Allegations While Exercising Quashing Powers Under S.482 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-13

High Court Declines to Quash Forgery and Conspiracy Charges Against Advocate in Disproportionate Assets Case

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Kulbir Singh Dhaliwal seeking to quash a CBI charge sheet accusing him of forgery and criminal conspiracy. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , held that it could not conduct a "mini-trial" or delve into the truthfulness of allegations at this stage, as there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner.

The court reiterated the settled legal principle that its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are to be exercised sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, especially when the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offense.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR against Brigadier J.K. Narang for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. During the investigation, the CBI implicated Kulbir Singh Dhaliwal, an advocate, alleging that he conspired with Brigadier Narang and his son, Sumant Narang, to conceal the ill-gotten wealth.

The CBI's charge sheet alleges that Dhaliwal helped create a fabricated and ante-dated Agreement to Sell dated April 15, 2011. This agreement purported to show that Dhaliwal had paid ₹25 lakhs in cash to Sumant Narang for a property. The CBI contended that this was a sham transaction designed to create a false source of income for the Narang family during the investigation's "check period" (January 2007 to February 2012). The cornerstone of the CBI's case is the evidence that the stamp paper used for the 2011 agreement was not issued until February 13, 2012, making the earlier date impossible.

Dhaliwal filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false, the transaction was bona fide, and that he could not be held liable for forgery as he was not the "maker" of the document.

Arguments at the Bar

• Petitioner's Counsel (Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate): The petitioner's counsel argued that the transaction was genuine and that the subsequent return of money to Sumant Narang via cheque demonstrated its bona fide nature. It was contended that merely ante-dating a document does not constitute forgery and that no party to the agreement had complained of any wrongdoing.

• Respondent's Counsel (Mr. Janesh Mahajan for CBI): The CBI counsel countered that the evidence was strong. Statements from stamp vendors confirmed the stamp paper was issued in 2012, proving the 2011 agreement was fabricated. He argued that the document was created with the specific intent to mislead the investigation and inflate the co-accused's income. The timing of the subsequent cancellation of the agreement, which occurred only after the FIR was registered, showed it was not a genuine transaction.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Rakesh Kainthla undertook a detailed examination of the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal . The court emphasized that proceedings can be quashed only if the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offense or if the proceedings are a manifest abuse of the process of law.

The judgment highlighted several key pieces of evidence presented by the CBI that established a prima facie case:

"The statement of [the stamp vendor] clearly shows that the stamp paper used for writing the document was issued on 13.02.2012, and no agreement could have been executed on it on 01.04.2011. Hence, the agreement was ante-dated."

The court also pointed to witness statements suggesting that the agreement was not executed in their presence and that no money was exchanged. It rejected the petitioner's claim of being a mere signatory, noting:

"...the fact that the attesting witnesses were asked by the petitioner and his daughter and not by the petitioner and Sumant to put the signatures prima facie show that the petitioner and his daughter were responsible for the preparation of the document. Hence, the submission that the petitioner is not the maker of the document and cannot be held liable is not acceptable."

The court deemed the petitioner's argument about the subsequent return of money as a "post-litem transaction" that did not establish bona fides, as it occurred after the CBI had initiated its proceedings.

Final Decision

Concluding that the CBI had presented sufficient material to proceed with the trial, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its role was not to appreciate evidence or determine the veracity of the allegations, which is the function of the trial court.

"It is impermissible for this Court to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in it," the judgment stated, citing Supreme Court precedent. "When the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same."

The court directed that its observations are confined to the disposal of the petition and will not influence the merits of the case during the trial.