The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed further criminal proceedings arising from an FIR against luxury automobile dealership AMP Motors Pvt Ltd and others in a dispute involving a Range Rover, while issuing notice to the Punjab government. Justice Sumeet Goel passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Bhupinder Singh Anand and seven others challenging an FIR registered at Police Station Sohana in SAS Nagar last year. The court directed that proceedings arising from the FIR remain stayed until the next hearing, fixed for September 3, 2026.
The FIR, registered on August 30, 2025, invokes Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to cheating and criminal intimidation, respectively. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. They have also sought protection against coercive action, contending that Punjab Police lacked territorial jurisdiction to register the case.
Additional Advocate General Adhiraj Singh Thind accepted notice on behalf of the Punjab government. The High Court also directed the Station House Officer concerned to inform complainant Hari Om about the pendency of the petition and the date of the next hearing and submit a compliance report.
According to the petitioners' version placed before the court, the dispute originated in November 2024 and concerns a Range Rover owned by Sukhmaa Sons of Vijay Maan.
The vehicle was brought by a driver to AMP Motors' showroom in Gurugram on November 20, 2024, for general repair and servicing.
The petitioners claimed that during the work, a minor scratch appeared on the front-left bumper and a portion of the paint protection film, or PPF, peeled off. According to their case, the dealership offered to replace the PPF covering the entire front bumper.
The petitioners have disputed the complainant's assertion that the Range Rover had been purchased from AMP Motors. They maintained before the High Court that the vehicle was never sold by the dealership and alleged that claims made in the Punjab FIR were fabricated.
The case subsequently escalated beyond what began as a dispute over the servicing of the luxury SUV.
The petitioners alleged that the driver later parked the Range Rover at the entrance of the showroom, obstructing access and disrupting the dealership's operations. AMP Motors then submitted a complaint alleging wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy.
However, according to the petition, instead of registering a case on the dealership's complaint, Gurugram Police registered an FIR on November 22, 2024, against members of the Anand family and others under provisions concerning offences including causing hurt, obscene acts and mischief.
The petitioners told the High Court that Gurugram Police subsequently investigated the allegations and filed a final closure report on February 10, 2025, concluding that no offence was made out against the accused.
They thereafter approached the High Court seeking quashing of the earlier FIR.
On May 5, 2025, the court issued notice and sought a status report from police. It also sought information on whether any proceedings had been initiated against the complainant for allegedly filing a false complaint.
The petitioners have now claimed that the subsequent FIR registered in Punjab in August 2025 was a "counterblast" to the proceedings initiated before the High Court in connection with the Gurugram case.
They argued that a second criminal case had effectively arisen from the same underlying dispute concerning the vehicle.
A key argument raised by AMP Motors and the other petitioners concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab Police.
The petitioners contended that the events forming the basis of the dispute occurred at the company's showroom in Gurugram, Haryana, and questioned the basis on which an FIR was subsequently registered at Sohana in SAS Nagar, Punjab.
They have also argued that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, the essential ingredients required to establish cheating under Section 318(4) and criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of the BNS are not made out.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which preserves the inherent powers of High Courts to pass orders necessary to give effect to provisions of the law, prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Advocates Sumit Gehlot, Manju Gehlot and Rahul Garg represented the petitioners.
For now, the High Court has granted interim protection by staying all further proceedings arising from the Punjab FIR. The court has not, at this stage, ruled on the merits of the allegations or the petitioners' plea seeking quashing of the case.
The matter will next be taken up on September 3, when the court is expected to further consider the challenge to the FIR and the jurisdictional objections raised by the petitioners.