False Implication Is No Ground to Quash an FIR if Cognizable Offences Are Disclosed: Punjab and Haryana High Court Reaffirmed Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Principles
Case Name: Amarjit Singh Dhamotia v. State of Punjab & Another
Date of Judgment: 27 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-49199-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be exercised to quash an FIR merely because the accused alleges false implication, mala fide intention, delay in registration, or absence of recovery when the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra continue to govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Summary: The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had, over several years, been operating an extortion racket by demanding weekly protection money through associates and threatening to shut down the complainant’s medical establishment upon non-payment. An audio recording allegedly supporting the accusations was also stated to have been supplied to the investigating agency.
The petitioner argued that the FIR was a malicious counterblast to complaints lodged by him against the complainant’s alleged illegal construction and unauthorized activities. He further relied upon his advanced age, serious medical condition following a hemorrhagic stroke, delay in registration of the FIR, absence of any recovery, lack of independent corroboration, and pendency of investigation to contend that continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that the FIR contained specific allegations of systematic extortion and criminal intimidation which prima facie disclosed cognizable offences. The Court held that the petitioner’s pleas regarding false implication, medical incapacity, delay, and mala fide motives constituted disputed factual issues which could not be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction. Reaffirming the restrictive principles governing FIR quashing, the Court concluded that the present case did not satisfy any of the exceptional categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. Consequently, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed while clarifying that the observations made would not influence the investigation or trial.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the FIR. It held that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation and that the case did not fall within the exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.