“FIR Is Not an Encyclopaedia”; High Court Cannot Test Truth of Allegations While Investigation Is Underway: Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Section 528 BNSS Quashing Plea
Case Name: Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026
Citation: CRM-M-38616-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage when the investigation into a cognizable offence is still underway. Except in exceptional circumstances where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the High Court should allow the investigating agency to exercise its statutory right and duty to investigate the allegations made in the FIR.
While considering a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court is required to determine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. At this preliminary stage, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability, correctness or genuineness of the allegations, nor can it assess evidence that is still being collected by the investigating agency.
The Court reiterated that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia containing every fact and detail relating to the alleged offence. It would be premature to pronounce that an FIR does not deserve investigation merely on the basis of incomplete or hazy facts. If the investigation ultimately reveals that the allegations are without substance, the investigating officer remains at liberty to submit an appropriate report before the competent court in accordance with law.
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly wide, but its width requires corresponding caution and judicial restraint. Where the investigation remains incomplete, no final report has been filed and the petitioner fails to demonstrate any compelling or exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the High Court should not bring the investigation to a premature end.
Summary: The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0046 dated 17 March 2026, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka, along with all consequential proceedings.
The FIR arose from a complaint made by respondent No. 2, Ranjit Singh. According to the complainant, the petitioner and co-accused Manjit Singh and Ram Parkash represented themselves as employees of Sarv Hit Housing and Infrastructure India Limited. They allegedly induced the complainant to invest money in the company by representing that the company purchased land in different States and distributed the profits earned from its sale among investors.
Acting upon these representations, the complainant allegedly invested ₹1,07,000 in 2010. He was subsequently informed that the investment had matured to ₹3,83,200 with interest. However, when he sought withdrawal of the matured amount, the petitioner and the other accused allegedly stopped responding to his calls and queries and failed to return the money. On these allegations, the complainant claimed that he had been cheated and had suffered wrongful financial loss.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that a dispute essentially civil in nature had been given a criminal colour. He maintained that he was not the Managing Director of the company and had resigned before the complainant allegedly made the investment. He also expressed willingness to join the investigation and contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The State opposed the petition on the ground that the investigation was still pending and no final report had been filed. It was contended that the request to quash the FIR was premature and that the investigating agency should be permitted to complete its statutory function.
Relying upon Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the High Court reiterated that the police possess a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that courts should not obstruct a legitimate investigation at its inception. While examining a quashing petition, the Court cannot conduct a premature inquiry into the truthfulness or evidentiary reliability of the allegations contained in the FIR.
The Court also referred to Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2024) 10 SCC 527, to observe that the allegations and the material collected during investigation must be considered at their face value to determine whether a prima facie case exists. Their correctness is not required to be tested at the quashing stage. The precise offence for which an accused should ultimately be tried is a matter to be determined after investigation, when the collected material is available before the competent court at the stage of framing charges.
Reliance was further placed upon Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195, which cautions courts against interfering with an investigation before the investigating agency submits its final report.
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the investigation was admittedly incomplete and the final report had not yet been filed. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclosed no offence or that the case involved any exceptional circumstance justifying immediate interference. Any assessment of the merits at that stage would require the Court to evaluate material that was still being collected and could result in a premature determination of the controversy.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition as premature, holding that no ground had been made out for exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR while the investigation was still pending.