Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Lawyer For Allegedly Impersonating A Judge And Obstructing Traffic Police
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case against a lawyer accused of impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check. The Court declined to interfere with the FIR, holding that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation and trial. The petitioner had claimed false implication, abuse of process, and protection under statutory bars and mental incapacity, while alleging police vendetta. Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that disputed facts could not be examined in a quashing petition and that statutory bars and immunity pleas were matters to be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and upheld continuation of the criminal proceedings.
The case arose from a petition seeking quashing of a criminal FIR registered following a traffic-check incident in Chandigarh. According to the prosecution, police officials on duty noticed a vehicle with an obscured number plate and signalled it to stop. The driver allegedly refused to produce a driving licence, identified himself as a Judicial Magistrate, affirmed this claim when questioned, and later fled the spot despite police directions. Verification later showed that the vehicle did not belong to any magistrate and that a judge’s sticker was affixed on the windshield. It was further alleged that the driver misbehaved with a constable and obstructed him in the discharge of official duties.
The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to prior complaints made against police officials. He asserted that the police officers were not in uniform, that no impersonation occurred, and that his subsequent arrest was illegal. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on grounds of mala fides, lack of evidence, statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in relation to obstruction of public servant, and claimed immunity under Section 84 IPC due to mental health issues arising after the incident.
The Court recorded that "there are very specific, categorical and prominent allegations against the petitioner that when two police officers were discharging their duty at the intersection of Sectors 45/46/49/50 the petitioner violated traffic rules, and when he was asked to show his driving licence, instead of showing his driving licence firstly, he tried to overawe the police officers by projecting himself to be a Judicial Magistrate and when he failed in doing so, and the police officers continued to insist for his driving licence, he drove away from the spot against the instructions of police officers, and thus, he committed the above mentioned offence."
The Court stated that “without proper appreciation of evidence, to be adduced at the time of trial, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion as to which of the two stories is true.” It further observed that assessment of disputed facts in a quashing petition would be improper and “likely to result into miscarriage of justice.”
On the scope of quashing, the Court referred to settled principles and observed that “criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage” and that quashing is an exception to be exercised sparingly. The Court noted that it could not examine the reliability or genuineness of allegations at this stage.
Addressing the statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that the allegations comprised two distinct sets of offences. It recorded that the bar applied to the offence relating to obstruction of a public servant but not to the offences of impersonation and cheating, which were “independent of each other and capable of splitting.”
On the plea of immunity under Section 84 IPC, the Court observed that the petitioner had not claimed mental incapacity at the time of the alleged incident and that subsequent mental health issues could not be a ground for quashing the FIR. The Court stated that such a plea could be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
The Court recorded that “no ground for quashing of FIR, as claimed by the petitioner is made out. The present petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The present petition is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hardial Singh Baath, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for UT Chandigarh
Case Title: Parkash Singh Marwah v. State of UT Chandigarh and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:173072
Case Number: CRM-M No.51611 of 2024 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
