False Verification Allegations Enough to Face Trial: P&H High Court Refuses FIR Quashing at Pre-Charge Stage

Case Name: Kalvi Ashoka v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-13471-2026

Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) cannot be exercised to quash FIR where allegations and material on record prima facie disclose commission of an offence. Issues relating to evidence, including disclosure statements and lack of direct monetary linkage, are matters for trial and not for adjudication at the pre-charge stage.

Summary: The petitioner, a police official, sought quashing of an FIR alleging his involvement in facilitating issuance of passports on the basis of false police verification reports. It was contended that he was not named in the FIR and had been implicated only through disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. The petitioner further argued that there was no financial transaction or call record linking him with the alleged racket and that he had acted in accordance with official SOPs.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had conducted false verification in connivance with co-accused, enabling issuance of passports on forged documents. It was further argued that the investigation had collected corroborative material including call records and documentary evidence, and that a departmental enquiry had also found the petitioner guilty of misconduct.

The High Court observed that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is limited and must be exercised sparingly. It held that the FIR and material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding inadmissibility of disclosure statements, noting that the investigation had yielded additional corroborative material. It further held that issues such as absence of monetary transactions, reliance on SOPs, and alleged negligence are matters of defence, which cannot be examined at the stage of quashing.

The Court also noted that the challan had already been presented and the case was at the stage of framing of charges, with multiple witnesses proposed to be examined. In such circumstances, interference at the threshold would be unwarranted.

Relying on settled principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that where allegations disclose a cognizable offence, proceedings ought not to be quashed.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing of FIR, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charges.