Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M) 1-
131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.03.2026
SAHIL VERMA ...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 14.05.2022 under Sections 323, 341, 354-A, 354-D, 506, 120-B, 216 and 201 Indian Penal Code and Section 8 and 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Case was registered on complaint of prosecutrix "J" who stated that in the year 2016 to 2018, she was student of Class 11th and 12th along with Sahil, who had been harassing and teasing her since then. Whenever she went for tuition, he used to stop her on the way and forcibly caught her hand, making obscene comments. He threatened to dishonor her if she disclosed the matter to anyone. After completion of 12th class, she started going to a computer centre where one day, Sahil forcibly snatched her mobile phone and transferred the phone numbers saved in her mobile phone to his phone. After taking OTP, he started keeping a watch on her, on her activities, hacked her phone and started harassing her. In 2018, she took SUMIT SINGLA 2026.03.13 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M) -2- admission in Hotel Management course. There also, he started chasing her. One day, he caught hold of her hand and when she objected, he slapped her, tore off her assignment and started pressurizing her to meet him daily. After threatening her, he took her to hotel many times, prepared her obscene videos & photographs and threatened to make the same viral if she did not agree with him. Out of fear, she did not disclose the incident to her parents. In April 2020, she went to Ramada Plaza Hotel, Zirakpur for training, where he kept calling her again and again and kept harassing her. On 30.04.2022, when she was going with her friend "R" from PG Punjab Complex, Batlana, he forcibly stopped her, snatched her detail marks card, touched her private parts forcibly and slapped her. He also scanned the whatsapp code of her phone and hacked it. He threatened to throw acid on her face. He sent the amounts of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.8,000/- to her to show that she was in touch with him. He used to call her family members through spoofing website from her mobile number and had been harassing all of them. The girls who were on training with her, motivated her not to suffer his behaviour and to inform her parents. Thereafter, she informed her parents telephonically and she was brought back to Pehowa. Parents of Sahil were informed and they assured that he will not repeat such acts in future. However, on 12.05.2022 at about 07:30 PM, when she was going Brahmjoon Temple, he forcibly caught her hand, stopped her from going to temple and again touched her private parts. He asked her to establish physical relations but she refused. Then, he started removing her clothes and she started weeping. He told her that he would not allow her to stay happy with anyone and pressurized her to commit suicide. He also threatened to put acid and spoil her face. Out of fear, she did not tell her parents. When her SUMIT SINGLA 2026.03.13 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M) -3- parents asked her, she told them everything. Legal action was prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of lodging the FIR, complainant was about 20 years old and the FIR was lodged due to pressure of her parents, putting across an exaggerated version of the incidents to damage the career and future of the petitioner. In fact, petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship and the FIR was misuse of the criminal process. To show the consensual nature of relationship, learned counsel referred to various photographs on record as Annexure P3. It was argued that entire case was vitiated by unexplained, inordinate delay of 6 to 7 years which seriously effected the credibility of allegations. Prosecutrix even refused for medical examination, stating that no sexual assault had taken place with her. There were various inconsistencies and omissions in the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to the abuse of the process of law. Prosecutrix having attained majority, the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were not attracted. The FIR was based on vague, general and indefinite allegations and did not disclose any cognizable offence. No video, photograph or electronic material was ever recovered from the petitioner during investigation. Medical evidence did not corroborate prosecution version. There was no forensic report regarding hacking of the mobile phone, spoofing of calls or misuse of OTP. It was thus prayed that the FIR be quashed.
4. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 BNSS are invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS is SUMIT SINGLA 2026.03.13 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M) -4- warranted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, when a clear case therefor is made out. Disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in a quashing petition and defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during the trial. Whether the allegations levelled in the FIR are true or untrue would have to be decided upon appreciation of evidence of witnesses during the trial, their examination, cross-examination and evidence led in defence. In the exercise of inherent powers, this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in the FIR except in exceptionally rare cases where it is manifestly apparent that the allegations are frivolous and do not disclose any offence. Present is clearly not a case of that category which deserves to be quashed at the very inception.
5. In C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar And Others 2026 INSC 39, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:-
"22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the function of a trial court or conducting a mini-trial when disputed factual questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
24..... it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any SUMIT SINGLA 2026.03.13 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10660-2026 (O&M) -5- FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of the evidence.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law......"
6. FIR in question prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence(s). Considering the age of the prosecutrix at the time of alleged commission of offence in the year 2016 to 2018 and allegations in the FIR, it would be appropriate to allow trial to continue rather than to terminate it prematurely at this initial stage of the case. The truth of the allegations in the FIR cannot be gone into in these proceedings.
7. The petition is dismissed.
8. Observations in this order shall not be taken as expression of opinion on merits of the matter.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
11.03.2026
Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.03.13 09:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document