IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :13.01.2026 Neeraj Aggarwal and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter being referred as IPC only), the FIR No.0926 dated 01.12.2023, has been lodged in Police Station Sector-8, Faridabad District Faridabad. The petitioners have been implicated as accused in the above mentioned case and they are being prosecuted for the commission of above mentioned offence. Petitioners are aggrieved of their prosecution vide above mentioned FIR and, therefore, they have filed this petition for quashing of FIR.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that, at the instance of ‘Rakesh Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, the FIR was lodged and that he had stated that he was running a shop in the name and style of ‘Dynamic’ at Faridabad, and that on 01.12.2023, four persons armed with sticsks and pistols came there assaulted him with a stick and inflicted injury on his person. It was also stated by the complainant that even the pistol was displayed by one of the assailants but with the interventions of neighbours he was saved.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of above mentioned information formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served, Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. He has not opted to file reply in writing. However he has orally opposed the present petition.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been contended by leaned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are members of the same family, and that merely on the basis of statement of complainant they are likely to face the agony of prosecution. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that otherwise also the allegations against the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC are unfounded, as there is no medico- legal report to support the claim of the complainant to support his claim that he had suffered any injury in the incident.

8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that one of the relevant part to be taken note-of in the instant case is that the statement of complainant itself has not been found to be true by the police as in his statement the complainant had reported to the police that one of the assailants was carrying a pistol but qua that aspect his statement has not been believed by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the petitioners are innocent, who, are being subjected to harassment due to filing of false FIR.

9. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that during the course of investigation also no cogent and reliable evidence has been collected by the Investigating agency, and therefore, the FIR in question, and the subsequent prosecution of petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 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 Cases 303, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought for quashing of present FIR.

10. The l