IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 04.03.2025 Khalda Parveen and another ..... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners, by way of the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are seeking quashing of the FIR No.60 dated 10.06.2018, under Sections 452, 354-B, 323, 148 & 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga along with all subsequent & consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The controversy involved in the present case is that the abovesaid FIR has been registered against Ashraf Mohammad @ Kakku Baba, Mohindro wife of Kakku, Dimple daughter of Kakku, Sherry daughter of Kakku, Mohmmad Arshad @ Vicky son of Kakku, Mohammad Arbab @ Happy son of Kakku, Imran Khan son of Kala, Mohammad Shamshad @ Sony son of Mohammad Irshad @ Kala, all residents of Malerkotla and 3 & 4 unknown accused on the basis of statement of Nazia Bibi. The allegations leveled by the complainant are that on 07.06.2018 at about 01:00 p.m., she along with her husband Salim Khan and brother-in-law Shahjahan were present at her house. The petitioners and the other co-accused, armed with weapons, entered into the house of the complainant by jumping the outer wall. They forcibly took the complainant out of the room; while accused Kakku allegedly tore her clothes, present petitioners Dimple and Shery gave blow with iron rod which hit on the left side of eye of the complainant and punched her head respectively, and accused Mohindro gave kick blow in the stomach of the complainant. Accused Kakku also caused injury on the head of Salim with some sharp edge weapon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in the FIR by the name of Shery and Dimple, and not by their actual names. Further, on the date of the alleged incident i.e. 07.06.2018, petitioner No.1 was on duty, being a Nurse in Civil Hospital, Nakodar and similarly, petitioner No.2 who was serving at the Nakodar Branch of Abhivyakti Foundation, New Delhi was also on duty. It has further been argued that the abovesaid FIR is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the other co-accused, as also the present petitioners were earlier declared as proclaimed offenders vide orders dated 19.01.2019 & 17.12.2018 respectively and while some co-accused joined investigation on 04.07.2020; it was way later that the present petitioners joined the investigation of the case on 23.05.2023, in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in CRM-M-26545-2020. It has been further argued that after completion of investigation, supplementary challan against the petitioners was presented before the trial Court on 05.06.2024. She, on instructions, further submits that charges were framed on 06.09.2024 and out of a total of

12 prosecution witnesses, 08 witnesses have been examined.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The principles governing quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings were summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 after analysing catena of judicial precedents. The relevant observations of the decision are extracted hereunder:

“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, the following principles of law emerge:

13.1. 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 cognizable offences;

13.2. Courts would not t