The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him for allegedly impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check. The Court observed that disputed questions of fact regarding the incident could not be adjudicated in a quashing petition and must be determined during the trial.
Justice Surya Partap Singh presided over the case titled Parkash Singh Marwah vs. State of UT Chandigarh and others, where the petitioner had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR (No. 26 dated 19.05.2024) lodged at Police Station Sector-49, UT Chandigarh. The prosecution’s case, based on a report by ASI Ajit Singh, alleges that on May 18, 2024, police officials spotted a Scorpio car at the crossing of Sectors 45/46/49/50 with its front number plate partially covered by a cloth.
The police alleged that the driver, instead of stopping at the signal, crossed the Zebra crossing. When Constable Yogesh began videographing the vehicle, the driver allegedly refused to produce his driving license and introduced himself as a Judicial Magistrate named ‘Parkash’. The FIR states that when asked for confirmation, the driver “nodded in affirmative.” It was further alleged that a “Judge” sticker was affixed to the car’s windshield. The driver allegedly misbehaved with the constable and fled the spot. Verification later revealed the car did not belong to a Magistrate.
The petitioner, a lawyer, contended that he was falsely implicated due to a vendetta held by the Chandigarh Police. He claimed to be a “budding lawyer” who had filed various complaints against the administration and police officers, including a complaint against a DSP of Traffic Police (Respondent No. 4). He alleged that on the day of the incident, he was with his ailing mother and was stopped by police officers who were not in uniform.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the story of obstruction and impersonation was “cooked-up” out of vengeance. A key legal challenge was raised regarding the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions). Relying on the judgment in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (1998) and Ashok and others Vs. The State (1987), the counsel argued that Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) bars the court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned.
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that he suffered from depression due to the harassment and was undergoing counseling. Citing Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, the counsel argued for immunity under Section 84 IPC (Act of a person of unsound mind). The petitioner also relied on the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal.
State’s Submissions: The State counsel opposed the plea, asserting that the allegations were serious as the petitioner tried to “take undue advantage of the position by impersonating himself as a member of judicial fraternity.” Regarding the legal bar under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., the State argued it was not attracted because the petitioner was also charged under Section 419 IPC (Cheating by personation), which is an independent offence.
The State further contended that the plea of Section 84 IPC was misplaced as the petitioner did not claim to be of unsound mind “at the time of commission of offence.” The State also submitted that video footage of the incident was available.
Court’s Analysis
The Court formulated three points for determination: whether the FIR was liable to be quashed based on the “false story” plea; whether the bar under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. applied; and whether the petitioner was entitled to immunity under Section 84 IPC.
1. Factual Disputes and Quashing Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that there were “specific, categorical and prominent allegations” against the petitioner. The Court noted that since the petitioner’s presence at the spot was admitted, the controversy regarding the true version of events could only be determined through evidence at trial.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that “courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences” and should not “embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.”
2. Bar Under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the entire FIR should be quashed due to the bar on cognizance for Section 186 IPC. The Court held that the offences under Sections 170 (Personating a public servant) and 419 IPC are independent.
“In view of the fact that the above mentioned two types of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner are independent of each other and capable of splitting, it is hereby held that the prosecution of petitioner under Sections 170/419 IPC on the basis of FIR cannot held to be defective.”
Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court clarified that the petitioner could raise the plea regarding the statutory bar before the trial court at the time of framing of charges.
3. Immunity Under Section 84 IPC The Court dismissed the argument seeking quashing based on the petitioner’s mental state. The bench observed that the plea related to dates subsequent to the offence.
“…it is hereby observed that the petitioner who has not claimed that at the time of commission of offence he was entitled for such immunity, cannot seek quashing of FIR on the above mentioned grounds.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that no ground for quashing the FIR was made out. The petition was dismissed, with the Court stating that the determination of the fact-situation “without proper evidence is likely to result into miscarriage of justice.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Parkash Singh Marwah Vs. State of UT Chandigarh and others
Case No: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Surya Partap Singh
