Ramneet Kaur @ Doli vs State Of HP & Anr

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.9 of 2025, dated 14.1.2025, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 331(3) and 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that she had gone to her parental home on 21.12.2024. She returned to her home on 13.1.2025. She opened the almirah to keep the money and found that the currency notes kept by her in the almirah were missing. She inquired from her husband, who said that he had not taken the money. She checked the other articles and found jewellery and currency notes worth ₹42,000/- to ₹45,000/-missing. She inquired from her parents-in-law, who revealed that the petitioner Ramneet Kaur had visited her room on three occasions. The informant suspected that the petitioner had committed the theft. Hence, the matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.

Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court, asserting that she was arrested on 27.1.2025 and was released on bail. The police had failed to collect any material against the petitioner. The investigation is continuing, and the police have failed to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. The informant and her relatives had changed their version regarding the dates of the petitioner's visit to their home. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be quashed.

I have heard Mr G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the police have failed to complete the investigation despite the lapse of more than one year. The police had arrested the petitioner and sought the police remand, but were unable to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

"7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any oflence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable oflence but constitute only a non-cognizable oflence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable based on which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)

Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case.

In clause (1), it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed.

As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.

Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed."

This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:

"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision.

However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.

It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).

A similar view was taken in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265, wherein it was observed:

"70. The aforesaid decisions of this Court make it clear that where the High Court is satisfied that the process of any court is being abused or likely to be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured, it is not only empowered but also obligated under the law to exercise its inherent powers. The provision does not confer any new power on the High Court but rather saves the power which the High Court already possesses, from before the enactment of the legislation, by reason of its very existence. In exercise of its power, it would be legitimate for the High Court to quash any criminal proceedings if the High Court finds that the initiation or continuation of it may lead to abuse of process of court, and quashing of the proceedings would serve the ends of justice."

The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The informant had made a complaint of theft of her jewellery and the currency notes. She had suspected the petitioner's involvement. As per the petitioner, the investigation is continuing, and the police have not connected the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The fact that a theft had taken place has not been disputed in the petition. Therefore, the police are duty-bound to trace the thief and take the FIR to the logical conclusion. Merely because the police are unable to collect any material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime cannot be a reason to quash the FIR.

The FIR specifically mentions that the petitioner had visited the informant's house on three occasions. She had also gone to the informant room. Therefore, specific allegations have been made in the FIR to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime, and it is impermissible to quash the FIR at the petitioner's instance.

The submission that the investigation has not been completed and no material has been collected against the petitioner will not help her because if it is so, the police would file a discharge application before the Court and arrest the person who had actually committed the crime. The mere fact that the police are unable to trace the thief cannot lead to the quashing of the FIR at this stage.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous applications, if any.

The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.