IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-14507-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.03.2026 Devendra Kamal Srivstav and Others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Garima Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate (through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Roopansh Purohit and Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Advocates for respondent no.2.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. he present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 11.02.2026 registered at Police Station Mohammadpur Ahir, District Nuh, Haryana under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC (318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the dispute between the parties pertains to a property in respect of which competing claims have been raised regarding ownership, possession, and validity of documents including sale deeds and a lease deed dated 23.08.2022. It is the case of the complainant that the said lease deed is forged and fabricated and has been used to defeat his rights in the property. The petitioners, on the other hand, assert their lawful rights flowing from the documents executed in their favour. It is not in dispute that multiple civil proceedings between the parties are already pending before competent civil courts, wherein issues relating to title, possession and validity of documents are under consideration. Prior to the registration of the present FIR, proceedings were also initiated before the learned Magistrate, who, upon consideration of the material, did not find it appropriate to direct registration of a case and instead left the parties to pursue their remedies in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that the present FIR is nothing but an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. It is submitted that the controversy between the parties is essentially with regard to property rights and the genuineness of documents, which are already subject matter of civil litigation. It is further contended that the allegations in the FIR are a repetition of earlier disputes and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to exert pressure upon the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State, and Mr. Narendra Hooda, learned Senior Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

6. Mr. Narendra Hooda, learned Senior Advocate, who is appearing through video conferencing on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and learned State counsel, have opposed the present petition. It has been contended that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences including cheating and forgery and that the police was justified in registering the case. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and require investigation and that the mere pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where ingredients of criminal offences are made out.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

8. At the very outset, it becomes apparent that the entire controversy between the parties is rooted in a dispute relating to immovable property, involving questions of title, possession and validity of documents such as sale deeds and the lease deed dated 23.08.2022. The allegations made in the FIR, though couched in the language of criminal offences, essentially aris