High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 7, 2026, held that the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or engage in the appreciation of evidence to determine the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR.

A bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed that the inherent power to quash proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only when the FIR fails to disclose a cognizable offence or constitutes an abuse of process, rather than evaluating the merits of the defence.

The petitioner, Balbir Kumar, sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, alleging the illegal carving out of an unauthorized colony without a licence. The petitioner contended that the land in question fell within municipal limits, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Town and Country Planning Department. He further argued that the small size of the plots exempted him from the requirement of obtaining a licence under the 1975 Act.

The primary questions before the Court were whether the registration of an FIR under the 1975 Act for lands falling within municipal limits is inherently without jurisdiction, and whether the High Court can quash such proceedings by accepting the petitioner’s defence at the threshold.

Scope of Section 482 CrPC

The Court emphasized that its inherent powers are meant to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of court processes. Relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the bench reiterated that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or test the veracity of allegations at the stage of quashing. The Court must look at the allegations on their face value without adding or subtracting anything, and it is not permitted to delve into the evidence before the trial stage.

No Blanket Immunity for Lands in Municipal Limits

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Rajat Kuchhal v. State of Haryana, the Court clarified that the ratio of that judgment pertained specifically to the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The Court held that the jurisdictional boundaries under the 1963 Act cannot be imported to restrict the 1975 Act, which specifically includes land within municipal limits in its definition of an "urban area."

Rejection of Reliance on Set-Aside Precedent

The petitioner’s reliance on the Rimpy Kansal case was rejected as the order initially quashing the FIR in that matter was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had explicitly disapproved of blanket orders restraining the registration of FIRs by the District Town Planner. The High Court clarified that the absence of such a bar does not mean every FIR is automatically maintainable, but rather that the allegations must be scrutinized on their own facts.

"The Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability and genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."

The Court concluded that the allegations regarding the development of an unauthorized colony and the construction of roads without a licence were substantive enough to warrant a trial. As the investigation was complete and the challan had been presented, the Court found no justification for interference. Consequently, the petition for quashing was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue his defences before the trial court.

Date of Decision: 07 September 2026