Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal v. State Of Punjab And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 11.05.2026
Pronounced on: 21.05.2026 DR. RAJESH AGGARWAL ..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :
Mr. Mansur Ali, Senior Advocate with Mr.
! " ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1.
The extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section #$% & ' ( ( $)$* +&'((, -
./ 0 $$1$$)$# 13 2
3'4 '!&25)*))1%6)$)$7 8 ! " - (! " 9 0 :;4 ')$** $*1$$)$# (7$) 7<# 7<6 7<% 761 766/
1$)/&; ! 3 ! ( ' & ! 3 2 / $$1$$)$# / :;4 =3 2.
In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a transplant surgeon, but facing a prosecution by virtue of FIR No.233 dated 23.12.2025 for the commission of offence under Sections 7$) 7<# 7<6 7<% 761 766/
1$)/ & ; ! 3 ! ( ' & ! 3 2
*
/ :;4 2 $$1$$)$# 8 9-/ = > " 3 2 3 (16#?*@& ' ( ( $)$* A ( 1#<?*@ 3 !3B '$
3 = / :;4 4.
Notice of motion.
5.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State,
! ", accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.
< C 6 ; has been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the filing of complaint by the respondent No.2 and exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court under (16#?*@& ' ( ( $)$* &'((
are nothing but an abuse of process of law. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the basis of totally false, frivolous and baseless allegations,
the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court without application of judicial mind, in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court by virtue of Section 175(3) of BNSS issued a direction to the police to register the FIR and investigate the same, by virtue of impugned order.
8.
With regard to above-mentioned jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court it has been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has unblemished professional carrier spanning over large number of years specially in critical care, and that with regard to cheating and forgery committed by the respondent No.2, the FIR No.139 dated 26.10.2021 was registered in the Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in the above-mentioned FIR, the complainant Dr. Kapil Gupta had levelled allegation against the respondent No.2, that he had purportedly collected money from patient without depositing the same into the account, and thus, committed the offence of cheating.
According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the police prepared a cancellation report in the above-mentioned FIR, and that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No.0139 dated 26.10.2021 lodged by Dr. Kapil Gupta. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is using police machinery for settling the score with the petitioner, and that purely a dispute of civil nature has been converted into a criminal case.
9.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and other doctors, but the police finding no force in the above-mentioned complaint and did not take any action, and therefore, the respondent No.2 resorted to filing a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and then seek a direction under Section 175(3) of BNSS, to the police to register the FIR.
As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in fact the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is a dispute with regard to accounting for which only civil remedy is available, but merely on the basis of false and frivolous ground, the FIR has been lodged. It has been pointedly argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR there are allegations of committing forgery of balance sheet and the falsity of the allegation of the respondent No.2 can be gauged from the fact that he has gone to the extent of levelling allegation of uploading two different balance sheets at different stage which is not possible at all. While referring to the principles of law laid down in the cases listed below, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that instant case is one of the fittest case wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction to stop the perpetuation of injustice should be exercised. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
a) By the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Ors' Law Finder Doc ID 1857055.
b) By the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.' Law Finder Doc ID 2751668. c) By the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors', Law Finder Doc ID 2499411, d) By the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'M/s Shikhar Chemicals Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr'. Law Finder Doc ID 2759898.
Thus, it has been urged by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in the exercise of above-mentioned extra-jurisdiction while accepting the present petition, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis the impugned FIR should be quashed. 11.
The above-mentioned arguments have been controverted by the learned State counsel. It has been contended by learned State counsel that in the present case the FIR has been lodged on the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the exercise of jurisdiction vested by virtue of
Section 175(3) of BNSS. According to learned State counsel the investigation in the present case is still in progress and all the facts are yet to crystallize, and therefore, at this stage approaching this Court by virtue of present petition is uncalled for.
12.
The learned State counsel has further contended that at this stage this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted that there is no substance in the allegation levelled by the respondent No.2 in the complaint/FIR. In view of above, it has been contended by learned State counsel that in the given fact situation, there is no scope for indulgence or interference in the impugned order, vis-a-vis the investigation being conducting by the police. According to learned State counsel the present petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal.
13.
The record has been perused carefully.
14.
In the present case at the very out-set it is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No.2. Since in the abovementioned complaint there are very specific and categorical allegations with regard to cheating and forgery of documents, which have been used as genuine document for drawing benefit, it is hereby held that the learned trial Court had drawn a right conclusion that on the basis of allegation contained in the complaint, the cognizable offence was made out and thus, rightly
exercised a jurisdiction to issue a direction to the police to register the FIR and investigate the matter.
15.
The above-mentioned exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court is nothing but a prima facie satisfaction that as per allegations contained in the complaint a cognizable offence is made out and the impugned order ipso facto does not mean that any finding has been recorded by learned trial Court with regard to guilt of the petitioner. For the sake of argument even it is assumed that the allegations contained in the FIR are contrary to the truth, the same are bound to surface during the course of investigation. If the stand taken by the petitioner is true than definitely it will come into the knowledge of Investigating Agency. Once the abovementioned truth is revealed to the Investigating Agency it will not be able to collect evidence against the petitioner which will essentially lead to filing a report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, under Section 193 BNSS, seeking for cancellation of FIR.
16.
Thus, in my opinion simply because a direction for registration of FIR has been issued and the probe is being conducted by the Investigating Agency is not going to cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The instant case is not a case, wherein on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, on the face of it, this inference can be drawn that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 with regard to cheating and forgery are false.
17.
;8 ( 9? @ :;4 =
" '<
$)1D '< 47 )) )))E/ = ; / :;4 0 = = ( F = :;4 ; 0
=
" 1% ; / C9 ( 3 ; = = = = > " C9 ( 3 ;
=
; = C9 ( 3 ; :;4=
C9 ( 3 ; =
- C9 ( 3 ; 0 / :;4 1D ; 8( ( G ( 4 ( 9 ? @ C9 ( 3 ; :;4
= C9 ( 3 ;
$) ; 8E ( 3 9 ? @ =
= C9 ( 3 ; / = $1 ;
H
/ = = =
=
$$ -
= C9 ( 3 ; 8 ( 9? @ 8( ( G( 4( 9? @ 8E ( 3 9 ? @ 23.
For the adjudication of the present petition, it is relevant to mention here that there are fix parameters wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court can be exercised for quashing of FIR. The guiding principles in this regard have been laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others' 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Those guidelines prescribe that:
"a) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
b) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
c) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
d) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
e) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
f) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
g) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
h) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
24.
In addition to above, in the case of 'State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal', 1991(1) RCR 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after reviewing large number of cases on the question of quashing of FIR has laid down that the FIR can be quashed in the following circumstances:- a) 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. b) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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.
c) 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.
d) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. e) 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.
f) 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 private and personal grudge.
$# I CJ ( 3 ; 8 ( ( ! " ?$)1$@ 1) ( 3 3*)*9 " 3 = 3 0 = C9 ( 3 = C 3 0 :;4 > " = (*$)3 3 ! ; = = =
> = = HK?@ " ?@ 3
$< (
8( 0 & C ( 9 3 '76$%$)$# C9 ( 3 ;
= > = C9 ( 3 ; C 3
= =
:;4 H $6 ;8E& "- -(L! $)$#?*@434?3 @16#9 C9 ( 3 ; " 0 :;4
>
8 9 C9 ( 3 ;
:;4 = H $% ;8 ;?( @93
'76#$$)$# C9 ( 3 ;
3
/ 0 0 :;4
> >
-C9 ( 3 ;
3 0
:;4E 29.
Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the instant case, discussed above and the legal proposition applicable to the present case, it is hereby observed that in the present case at this stage there is no scope for
indulgence and interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, and no ground for quashing of impugned order or the FIR is made out. Hence, it is hereby held that there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observation recorded in the present order shall not impact the rights of the petitioner to raise the same issue at any appropriate stage including the stage of framing of charge.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 21.05.2026 vipin Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No