Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Lawyer Who Allegedly Posed As Judge Before Traffic Police

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against an advocate who was accused of impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check in Chandigarh.

Justice Surya Pratap Singh noted, "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 FIR was registered under Section 186, 170, 419 IPC based on a complaint by an ASI who alleged that during a traffic checking duty, the petitioner was found driving a Scorpio car with its number plate partially concealed. When asked to stop and produce his driving licence, the petitioner allegedly introduced himself as a Judicial Magistrate, refused to comply, misbehaved with a constable, and fled from the spot.

It was further alleged that the vehicle carried a “Judge” sticker, and subsequent verification revealed that the petitioner was not a Magistrate. He was later arrested during investigation.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner claimed that the FIR was maliciously lodged due to personal vendetta, alleging that he had previously filed complaints against senior police officers, including a DSP. He asserted that the incident was concocted, that the police officials were not in uniform, and that he was illegally arrested two days later without prior knowledge of the FIR.

He also argued that registration of FIR for an offence under Section 186 IPC was barred by Section 195(1) CrPC. The proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law. Due to alleged mental health issues arising after the incident, he was entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC.

The UT Chandigarh administration opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner impersonated a Judicial Magistrate to evade lawful action and obstructed police officials. It was submitted that offences under Sections 170 and 419 IPC (impersonation and cheating) were clearly made out, and the bar under Section 195 CrPC did not apply to those offences.

The State also contended that the plea of mental illness was not relevant for quashing, as it did not relate to the petitioner's mental state at the time of the alleged offence.

After examining the submissions, the Court held that the petitioner's presence at the spot was undisputed and the rival versions required appreciation of evidence, which could not be undertaken in a quashing petition. Relying extensively on the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that High Courts should not conduct a “mini-trial” or assess the truthfulness of allegations at the investigation stage.

On the applicability of Section 195 CrPC, the Court held that while the bar may apply to the offence under Section 186 IPC, it does not extend to offences under Sections 170 and 419 IPC. Since the offences were separable, the FIR could not be quashed on this ground, and the petitioner was free to raise the plea at the stage of framing of charge.

Regarding the plea under Section 84 IPC, the Court observed that the petitioner had not claimed unsoundness of mind at the time of the alleged incident. Any subsequent mental health issues could be raised before the trial court but did not justify quashing of the FIR.

"It is, also relevant to note that if the petitioner claims that trial against him cannot proceed due to his above mentioned incapacity, such plea can be raised by the petitioner before the learned trial Court during the course of trial only. The filing of petition for quashing of FIR on the above mentioned grounds, is not permissible," it added.

The Court relied on 'M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.' 2025, wherein the Supreme Court of India has ruled that jurisdiction of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly in the 'rarest of rare cases'. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allegations in FIR or complaint must be taken at face value and accepted in their entirety to assess whether they disclose a cognizable offence.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Hardial Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Addl. P.P. for UT Chandigarh.

Title: Parkash Singh Marwah v. State of UT Chandigarh & Ors.

Click here to read order