Dr. Sumeet Sofat v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.05.2026 Dr. Sumeet Sofat

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Dr. Sumeet Sofat-petitioner in person through VC. Mr. Ritu Raj Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS (earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking directions to learned DGP, Punjab and learned Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to immediately stop the alleged usurping of powers of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court by allegedly quashing/deleting FIR No.92 dated 26.04.2024 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 447 and 511 IPC. The petitioner has further sought directions for taking corrective steps by lodging a fresh FIR after re-surrecting the allegedly wrongly quashed/deleted FIR.

2.

The petitioner, who was present in person through VC, has argued that the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions against the authorities concerned on the allegations that FIR No.92 dated 26.04.2024 has been illegally deleted/quashed despite there

-2being no order passed by any competent Court and that the petitioner is seeking restoration of the said FIR and consequential action in accordance with law. The petitioner has further argued that the present petition has been filed seeking directions to learned DGP, Punjab and learned Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to stop the alleged illegal practice of quashing/deleting FIRs and to take corrective steps by lodging a fresh FIR after allegedly re-surrecting the wrongly deleted/quashed FIR No.92 dated 26.04.2024 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 447 and 511 IPC.

It has further been argued that two separate police complaints regarding alleged fraud, forgery and land grabbing were made by the petitioner against different sets of accused persons and separate enquiry reports recommending registration of FIRs were prepared by the police authorities. The petitioner submits that both the complaints were wrongly mixed in one FIR and subsequently, another FIR came to be registered, which according to him clearly shows that the earlier FIR stood quashed/deleted by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has argued that there is no order whatsoever passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana quashing any FIR and the allegations levelled in the present petition are wholly baseless. It has further been argued that the petitioner is in the habit of filing such frivolous petitions without there being any substantive material on record. 4.

Heard.

5.

During the course of hearing, the petitioner, who was present

-3in person through VC, was specifically asked by this Court to place on record the alleged order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, whereby powers of this Court were allegedly usurped by quashing/deleting the FIR in question. However, the petitioner was unable to produce any such order on record. The only submission made by him was that since a second FIR has subsequently been registered, the same itself shows that the first FIR stood quashed/deleted.

6.

This Court finds that except for bald allegations levelled in the petition, there is not even an iota of evidence placed on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that FIR No.92 dated 26.04.2024 was ever quashed/deleted by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana or by any other police authority. Mere registration of another FIR cannot, by any stretch of imagination, lead to an inference that an earlier FIR stood quashed by the police authorities while usurping the powers of this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The allegations levelled in the present petition are wholly misconceived, unfounded and unsupported by any material. 7.

This Court further finds that the present petition is a wholly frivolous and misconceived petition filed without there being any material whatsoever to substantiate the serious allegations levelled against the police authorities regarding alleged usurpation of powers of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such bald and reckless allegations, unsupported by any documentary material, cannot be permitted to be made lightly before a Court of law. The present petition appears to have been filed in a casual manner, thereby unnecessarily consuming valuable judicial time. 8.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same

-4is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two weeks from today.

9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 26.05.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No