IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112 CRR-1605-2024 (O&M)

Decided on : 17.02.2026 Sunit Kumar ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Ankush Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.13 dated 08.01.2018 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC, Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the abovementioned FIR came into being on the complaint of Secretary Municipal Corporation Shahabad Markanda, who had complained about an incident of theft of steel material in the Cold Store. It was reported by the abovenamed complainant that in CWP No.14340/2009, it was observed that near Punjab National Bank, Shahabad there was illegal possession over the land belonging to Municipal Corporation and that on 24.12.2017 at about 07:00 P.M. it was noticed that there were efforts to remove the material from the abovementioned premises and for that purpose, the material was loaded in a tractor trolley.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, the accused Ankit was arrested, who during interrogation suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that once they lost case to Municipal Committee, the accused Jasbir Singh contacted him and called the scrap vendor Sunit Kumar, i.e. the petitioner, and a deal was struck for the sale of steel and wood scrap lying in the abovementioned premises. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned disclosure statement, abovenamed Jasbir Singh and Sunit Kumar were implicated as accused in the present case.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has nothing to do with the dispute with the owner of Cold Store and the Municipal Corporation, and that being a scrap dealer when a contact was made with the petitioner in bona fide manner, he had purchased the material for a consideration, and was removing the same. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be a mens rea on the part of petitioner, and that the present FIR has already been quashed qua similarly placed co-accused, namely Jasbir, vide order dated 13.09.2023 in CRM-M-29579-2018.

6. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused Jasbir Singh, and that otherwise also the allegations against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in the commission of crime are vague, inconclusive. In view of abovementioned contentions, the FIR in question has been sought to be quashed qua co-accused Sunit Kumar also.

7. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by learned State Counsel. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to removal of material from the property belonging to Municipal Corporation, and that this plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.14340/2009, is a defence plea and the same cannot be entertained unless the trial is complete and the defence evidence qua abovementioned plea is adduced.

8. According to learned State Counsel, the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing from the case of Jasbir because the allegation against Jasbir was that he was responsible for introducing Ankit with the petitioner, whereas the petitioner was actively involved in removing the scrap from the spot. In view of abovementioned dist