Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging property dispute given criminal colour. Court held offences made out prima facie and dismissed petition, noting Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not require mini-trial on FIR reliability.
Petition for quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
141
CRM-M-45185-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 29.01.2026
Dilbagh Singh … Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present:Mr. Amritpal Singh Maan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)
GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M-45185-2025 (O&M) ( 2 )
wall were being demolished by Dilbagh Singh along with other persons. Upon seeing this, the complainant, accompanied by his friends, reached the spot and objected to the illegal acts, requesting the accused persons not to cause any damage. However, the accused continued demolishing the wall, abused and threatened the complainant, claimed ownership of the plot, and attempted to forcibly take possession of the same. It is further stated that the accused persons had earlier also attempted to illegally occupy the said plot, in respect of which a civil suit is pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, wherein a stay order has also been granted. Despite the said stay, the accused again attempted to take forcible possession of the plot. The accused persons also removed and stole old electrical equipment belonging to the caretaker, Surjit Singh, including three to four bundles of electrical wire.
GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M-45185-2025 (O&M)
( 3 )
does not find merits in the contentions of the petitioner. The offences alleged in the FIR are figured out prima facie from the contents of the FIR. It is well settled principle of law that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial qua its satisfaction relating to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. The Court has only to consider whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie shows the commission of the cognizable offence.
( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 29.01.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No
GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dispute arising from allegations of attempted forcible occupation and demolition of property is a civil matter or cognizable offence attracting criminal proceedings.
Whether the FIR prima facie shows commission of offences under Sections 447, 511, 427, 380, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilbagh Singh
State of Punjab
Subhas Mehla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
