Jhabar v. State of Haryana – Quashing of FIR – Punjab & Haryana High Court – 18 Dec 2025

Case: Jhabar v. State of Haryana; Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court; Judge: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; Case No.: CRM‑M‑14873 of 2022 (O&M); Decision Date: 18‑12‑2025; Parties: Petitioners vs Respondents

Facts: An FIR (No. 63) dated 15 March 2022 had been lodged under IPC §§ 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 alleging fraudulent mutation of ancestral property, the mutation having been entered on 11 December 2000 and erroneously recorded as 2012; the alleged victim, a woman identified as the mother of two minor children, was alive at the time of the FIR and had executed affidavits on 19 April 2023 and 15 November 2025 expressly stating that she harboured no grievance with respect to the mutation, thereby rendering the civil dispute between the parties moot; the petitioners, being elderly descendants of the original owner, contended that the mutation preceded their interest and that they had not participated in any fraudulent conduct, while the respondent‑complainant, a distant relative descended from a different branch of the family, possessed no legal title to the contested share and sought criminal prosecution notwithstanding the settlement; the High Court was approached under the now‑renamed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for a complete quashing of the FIR and all consequent criminal proceedings, the petitioners emphasizing that continuation would impose undue hardship given their advanced age and that a civil suit concerning the same parcel of land was already pending, thereby raising the question of whether the criminal forum should intrude upon a settled civil controversy; the trial court had not previously entertained any of the alleged offences, and the investigation had resulted only in the arrest of a village official who admitted recording the mutation on the basis of oral information, without any further incriminating evidence being produced.

Issue: Whether the High Court may quash an FIR under Section 528 where the dispute is a private family inheritance matter and the aggrieved party has settled the issue.

Decision: DECIDED, the Court held that the inherent power vested in the High Court by Section 528 (earlier Section 482 CrPC) expressly permits quashing where the matter is private in nature, pertains to family inheritance, and the aggrieved party has amicably resolved the issue, for such circumstances render the continuation of criminal proceedings an unnecessary use of judicial resources.

Quote: ["Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC) if the matter is private in nature, pertains to family inheritance, and the aggrieved party has amicably resolved the issue. ... The continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law."]

Issue: Whether the complainant, who is not the true aggrieved party, possesses locus standi to initiate criminal prosecution concerning the disputed share.

Decision: DECIDED, the Court concluded that only the true victim—identified as the mother of the minor children and rightful heir—could invoke criminal liability, and that the objection raised by the distant relative therefore lacked any legal foundation and was rightfully dismissed.

Quote: ["The objection of respondent No.2‑ Jagdish thus deservers to be rejected."]

Issue: Whether offences listed under IPC §§ 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, though non‑compoundable, can be treated as private matters suitable for quashing.

Decision: PARTLY DECIDED, the Court affirmed that the nature of the alleged offences does not preclude the exercise of quashing power, for Section 528 extends to non‑compoundable offences where the grievance has been settled and the matter is devoid of public interest, thereby allowing the Court to restrain criminal prosecution despite the statute's non‑compoundable character.

Quote: ["Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice… The power to quash … is attracted even if the offence is non‑compoundable."]

Issue: Whether the lapse of twenty‑five years since the mutation diminishes the relevance of the alleged offence for criminal prosecution.

Decision: PARTLY DECIDED, the Court observed that the considerable temporal distance between the alleged fraudulent mutation and the filing of the FIR weakens any claim of ongoing criminal injury, rendering the prosecution both oppressive and incongruent with the principles of timely administration of justice.

Quote: ["The continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law."]

Issue: Whether the expressed lack of grievance by the true victim renders the FIR an abuse of process.

Decision: DECIDED, the Court held that the victim's unequivocal affidavits disavowing any objection constitute a decisive factor, for continuation of the FIR in the face of such settlement would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and contravene the equitable objectives of the criminal justice system.

Quote: ["The continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law."]

Issue: Whether the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same property bars the criminal court from interfering.

Decision: PARTLY DECIDED, the Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the civil dispute, emphasizing that the criminal proceeding must not intrude upon an ongoing civil suit, and that the primary inquiry was limited to the propriety of the FIR, not the resolution of the underlying property rights.

Quote: ["Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC) if the matter is private in nature, pertains to family inheritance, and the aggrieved party has amicably resolved the issue."]

Issue: Whether the advanced age and frailty of the petitioners constitute a factor warranting quashing on grounds of undue hardship.

Decision: DECIDED, the Court found that subjecting petitioners, several of whom were over seventy years of age, to the rigours of criminal trial would cause undue hardship, and that such personal circumstances, when coupled with the settlement of the dispute, merit the exercise of quashing jurisdiction to avert oppression.

Quote: ["The continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law."]

Conclusion: The Punjab & Haryana High Court, invoking its inherent authority under Section 528 BNSS, wholly quashed FIR No. 63 and all related criminal proceedings, rejecting the complainant's locus standi, recognising the private and settled nature of the inheritance dispute, deeming the alleged offences amenable to quash notwithstanding their non‑compoundable status, acknowledging the oppressive effect of prolonged litigation on elderly petitioners, and expressly declining to interfere with the parallel civil suit, thereby granting the petitioners complete relief.

Quashing of FIR – SimranLaw Representation before the High Court at Chandigarh

Why Choose SimranLaw: SimranLaw offers seasoned practitioners well‑versed in the intricate procedural landscape of quashing petitions, with proven competence in presenting comprehensive affidavits, analysing statutory amendments such as Section 528 BNSS, and navigating the High Court at Chandigarh to secure swift dismissal of baseless criminal proceedings while safeguarding client welfare.