Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shweta Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-1232-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
144
CRM-M-1232-2026
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
SHWETA SHARMA
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(B.N.S.S.) for quashing the FIR No. 0246 dated 05.08.2025 u/s 316(4) & 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at P.S. Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana and all the criminal, subsequent, or incidental proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record and relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant-Respondent no.2. The PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 petitioner has worked since 2022 as a non-teaching staff I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -2- member at the respondent's school, handling fee receipts, though no formal appointment letter was issued (only a supporting letter for a loan). It is alleged that Respondent No.2 (the school principal) used her position to repeatedly borrow money from the petitioner on the pretext of urgent needs, promising repayment. When the petitioner demanded her money back, disputes arose and the petitioner's children were removed from the school. Despite multiple requests, the respondent No.2 failed to repay the money, causing financial hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit in Gurugram for recovery of ₹71,575 plus interest and in response, the respondent No.2 has filed present FIR against the petitioner.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is purely civil in nature and relates only to the recovery of money. However, the respondent, with the assistance of the police, has attempted to give the dispute a criminal colour. In reality, no criminal offence is made out, and the involvement of the police in a money recovery matter is beyond their jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of law. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2, with mala fide intention and as an act of vengeance arising out of the pending civil suit, has lodged the present false and PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 fabricated FIR against the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -3- the present FIR be quashed along with all consequential proceedings, being an abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned State counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent state upon advance notice of the petition. It is argued by him that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Detailed and thorough investigation is necessary regarding the transactions which had been conducted between the parties. The investigation is at premature stage as the petitioner has not joined the investigation. Matter is being fairly investigated by the investigating agency. This petition has been filed to hamper the investigation and it is wholly misconceived. The question of quashing of FIR at this nascent stage does not arise and thus it is stressed that the petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage.
5. Rival submissions made by both the parties have been heard at length.
6. The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS for the purpose of seeking of quashing of FIR which has been registered against her on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2. The well settled proposition of law is that except in exceptional circumstances where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Courts ought not to interfere at the stage of investigation of an offence as if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, the same thwarts legitimate PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -4- investigation. Reliance in this context can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein after analyzing a catena of judicial precedents, it was observed that the police had statutory right and duty to investigate into cognizable offences under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Courts should not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences. The criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. While examining a FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. It was also observed that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. It was also observed as follows:-
"13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -5- investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; 13.13. The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
13.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -6- the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
7. Reference can also be made to Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2024 (10) SCC 527, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that during judicial examination of a prayer for quashing of an FIR, the cognizance order, or subsequent proceedings, Courts must evaluate the allegations and material collected during investigation at face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. The Court is also not required to ascertain at this stage as to which specific offence is committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when the material collected during investigation is before the Court, that the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence, the accused should be tried.
8. Reliance can also be placed upon Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195, wherein it was held that the Court should not interfere with investigation or during the course of investigation i.e. till the filing of a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. by exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
PUNEET SHARMA2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -7-
9. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur, 2026 INSC 252; has held that quashing an FIR prematurely when investigation is still underway and vital material is yet to be collected is unjustified.
10. The proposition of law as laid down in the above cited cases shows that recourse to quashing of FIR is to be taken only in rarest of rare cases and when the investigation of a case is at its nascent stage, this power should be used sparingly. In the instant case, the investigation is at its initial stage. The petitioner has not joined the same so far. After conducting preliminary inquiry, an FIR has been registered since it appears prima facie that cognizable offences were committed by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be premature to pronounce any conclusion based on given facts that the FIR does not deserve to be investigated.
11. Resultantly, as per the discussion made above and in view of the principles as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases, this Court is of the opinion that no case for quashing of FIR has been made out at this stage. As such, no ground for allowing the petition is made out. As a consequence, the same is dismissed.
PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-1232-2026 -8-
12. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
13. Needless to say, that if no case for commission of subject offences is made out, the police authorities shall be at liberty to file appropriate report under law.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 27.04.2026 JUDGE Puneet....
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
PUNEET SHARMA
2026.05.07 16.44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment