Mere Registration of Multiple Criminal Cases Cannot Establish Police Vendetta or False Implication: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-24881-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere registration of subsequent criminal cases against a person cannot, by itself, establish that such cases are false, malicious or motivated by police vendetta. Whether the allegations underlying those cases are genuine can be determined only by the competent criminal court after investigation, presentation of the prosecution case and appreciation of legally admissible evidence.
The Court further held that its extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked merely on apprehensions, conjectures or unsubstantiated allegations of police harassment, particularly where efficacious remedies under criminal law are available. The High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into pending criminal cases or prejudge their correctness under the guise of protecting the petitioner from alleged false implication.
Summary: The petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking, inter alia, a direction to the authorities to consider his representation dated 22 April 2025. He also sought protection of his life and personal liberty from alleged harassment and intimidation by officials of Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.
The petitioner alleged that the police officials were threatening to falsely implicate him in criminal cases, including cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to pressure him into withdrawing contempt proceedings stated to be pending before the Sessions Judge, Barnala. He additionally sought a direction requiring the police to strictly follow Section 179 BNSS if his presence was required in any inquiry or investigation.
According to the petitioner, he was a law-abiding citizen who had been subjected to continuous harassment and vindictive action by the local police. It was argued that even though he had obtained bail and acquittal in earlier criminal cases, the alleged intimidation continued. He claimed to have submitted a detailed representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, but alleged that no action had been taken upon it. He consequently invoked his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, along with the statutory safeguards under the BNSS.
The State disputed these allegations. It contended that no material had emerged during inquiry to establish that officials of Police Station Dhanaula had threatened the petitioner or attempted to compel him to withdraw contempt proceedings. The State also pointed out that the contempt proceedings relied upon by the petitioner had not actually been instituted by him.
An important contention raised by the petitioner was that several additional criminal cases had been registered against him even during the pendency of the petition. According to him, these subsequent cases corroborated his earlier apprehension that the police intended to falsely implicate and harass him.
The High Court rejected this inference. It held that registration of additional cases does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the prosecutions are false, malicious or mala fide. The legality and truthfulness of the allegations in those cases fall within the jurisdiction of the competent criminal courts and can be adjudicated only after proper investigation and evaluation of evidence. Any finding by the High Court at this stage that those prosecutions were fabricated would be premature and could prejudice the parties in the pending criminal proceedings.
The Court also explained the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and cannot become a mechanism for adjudicating speculative allegations of future false implication. The relief sought by the petitioner would effectively require the High Court to pronounce that the criminal cases registered against him were false and motivated even before those cases were adjudicated on evidence. Such a determination, the Court held, was beyond the permissible scope of the proceedings.
At the same time, the Court preserved the petitioner’s statutory protections. It expressly observed that if he is summoned or required to join an investigation in any criminal case, the investigating agency must act in accordance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and comply with all statutory safeguards available to him. The petitioner would also remain free to pursue appropriate legal remedies against any action that he considers arbitrary, illegal or violative of his legal or constitutional rights.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no ground had been made out for interference or for issuance of the directions sought by the petitioner. A High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction cannot pre-empt criminal investigation or trial merely on an accused’s apprehension of false implication, although the police remain bound to respect all procedural and constitutional safeguards during investigation.