Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds No Evidence to Sustain Charges of Fabrication, False Evidence, and Defamation
Case Name: Preet Kaushik @ Preet Singh vs. Pardeep Kumar & Another
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: CRM-A-680-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, holding that the prosecution had completely failed to bring forth any incriminating evidence. The Court found that the complainant’s own testimony exonerated the accused police official, that he had disowned his earlier allegations, and that no material existed to indicate fabrication of evidence, misconduct, or defamation as alleged. The Court held that the trial court’s judgment suffered from no illegality or perversity warranting interference.
Summary: The complainant alleged that on 18 September 2010, a group of 7–8 masked men assaulted him and raped a woman named Minu, who was present at his residence. He claimed that despite approaching the police and senior officials, no FIR was registered and instead, a false case under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 506 IPC was registered against him by SI Pardeep Kumar. Minu later filed an affidavit stating that the FIR registered against the complainant was false. The High Court subsequently quashed that FIR and discharged the complainant.
The complainant then filed a complaint seeking prosecution of SI Pardeep Kumar under Sections 192, 193, 195, 219, 499, 500 IPC, alleging that the officer deliberately lodged false FIRs, misrepresented facts, and tarnished his character. After revision proceedings, the accused was summoned and charges were framed.
During trial, however, the prosecution collapsed. The complainant, while deposing as PW-1, stated unequivocally that the FIR against him had been lodged by Smt. Indra Devi, not the accused; that he had been under a misunderstanding; and that SI Pardeep Kumar had neither harassed nor threatened him. He expressly disowned his earlier statements and the contents of the complaint. The second witness, Suresh Kumar, had died, and no other evidence was available. Despite being declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing incriminating could be elicited from PW-1.
The complainant later argued that his testimony was recorded in English, a language he did not understand, and that he was unaware he had been declared hostile. The High Court rejected this contention, observing that he was represented by counsel and that his statement was recorded in court in their presence. It held that an accused cannot later claim ignorance of the contents of his own deposition.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prosecution had produced no evidence—direct or circumstantial—linking the accused to any act of fabricating evidence, misleading investigation, or defaming the complainant. In absence of even “an iota” of incriminating material, acquittal was the only possible outcome.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that no perversity, illegality, or infirmity existed in the acquittal order dated 21.12.2019. With the complainant himself completely retracting allegations and no supporting evidence on record, no grounds existed for interference.