Punjab and Haryana High Court declines relief to lawyer who claimed to be judge before traffic cops

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against a lawyer booked for pretending to be a judge when stopped by the traffic police in Chandigarh last year [Prakash Singh Marwah v State of UT Chandigarh and others]

Justice Surya Pratap Singh observed that there are very specific allegations against accused Prakash Singh Marwah that he tried to overawe the police officials by projecting himself to be a judicial magistrate.

It also noted that when the cops continued to insist for his driving license, he chose to drive away from the spot. The Court declined to accept Marwah's argument's that a false story had been made up by the police as he had complained against the "misdeeds" of senior police officers.

"This fact cannot be ignored that his presence, on the spot, while driving his car, is an admitted fact and therefore, the controversy to be determined in the trial would be as to whether the version projected by the production is true or the version of petitioner," the bench said.

In May 2024, Marwah, who was driving a scorpio, was stopped by an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and a Constable as his front number plate was not properly visible. It was found that a part of the number part was covered by a cloth.

According to the police, Marwah stopped the vehicle only beyond the zebra crossing and when the cops started videography, he alighted from the car but refused to comply with the demand for production of his driving license.

He is also stated to have introduced himself as Judicial Magistrate 'Prakash' and even when a clarification was sought as to whether he was a magistrate, he nodded in affirmative.

A video of the incident had gone viral on social media.

In the subsequent case registered against Marwah, Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), Section 170 (personating a public servant) and 419 (cheating by impersonation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were invoked by the police.

Challenging the criminal case, Marwah's counsel argued that he had been implicated under a conspiracy. He had objected to the police officers not being in uniform at the time of the incident, the counsel claimed.

It was also argued that since the incident caused mental trauma to Marwah and he suffers from depression, he was entitled to protection under Section 84 (act of a person of unsound mind) of the IPC.

Considering the arguments, the Court noted that the plea with regard to immunity under Section 84 IPC had not been taken before.

"In view if the fact that the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to immunity under Section 84 IPC is related to the dates subsequent to the commission of alleged 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," the bench said.

However, it clarified that he can raise this plea during the course of trial.

Thus, the Court concluded that no ground was made for quashing the FIR.

"Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly," it ordered.

Earlier, Marwah had approached the High Court seeking takedown of the video of the incident.

He alleged an infringement of his right to live with dignity and the right to privacy. It was also argued that the uploading of the video was violative of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and thus sought its removal from social media sites.

In response, Chandigarh Police had told the High Court that an inquiry was ordered to find out who had uploaded the video on social media. It was also submitted that social media sites had been instructed to take down the video.

Advocate Hardal Singh Bath represented the petitioner

Additional Public Prosecutor Ganesh Sharma represented the UT Police.

[Read Judgment]