264 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 Raj Kumar ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and Another ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. J.S.Thind, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill and Mr. Prabhpreet Singh, Advocates for the complainant.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as “BNSS” seeking for quashing has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 173 dated 31.08.2024 under Section 281 and 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged in Police Station Guruharsahai, District Feroepur, Punjab.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Parvinder Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his younger brother ‘Gurpreet Singh’ who was a carpenter, had visited village Naneha on 03.07.2024 and that at about

09.15 P.M. he received a call that ‘Gurpreet Singh’ had met with an accident and admitted in Civil Hospital, Guru Harsahai. As per complainant, when he visited hospital, his brother was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot and when he shifted his brother to the above named hospital, the doctor declared him dead.

3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned information, formal FIR of this cases was lodged against an unknown vehicle & unknown driver and the investigation was taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation, the complainant met the Investigating Officer and told that on his own level he had made enquiries and found that the two-wheeler of his brother ‘Gurpreet Singh’ was hit by the Tractor make ‘Sonalika’ being driven by ‘Raj Kumar’ son of Des Raj (petitioner herein). As per complainant, at the time of accident, the above named driver was driving the tractor in a reckless and careless manner.

4. According to prosecution in view of above mentioned information, further investigation was conducted and the accused was arrested.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that instant case is a unique case wherein the same complainant, who lodged FIR against an unknown person, after some time approached the same Investigating Officer and disclosed him that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the most significant fact to be taken into consideration is that an altogether improbable and unnatural story with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence has been cooked up by introducing false witnesses who are close relatives/associates of the family of deceased. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it fails to convince a prudent mind that for several days there was no information either to the complainant or to the police about the identity of a person who was responsible for the accident, but later on out of blue by introducing the witnesses who made false statement, the vehicle of the petitioner and the petitioner have been implicated in the accident in question. While claiming that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is a created evidence which has no authenticity or convincing value at all, the learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that the prosecution of petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law, hence the request for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The FIR has been sought to be quashed on the above-mentioned grounds.

7. The learned State counsel being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, in the present case the quashing of F