The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed proceedings in an FIR against luxury car dealership AMP Motors concerning a Range Rover dispute. The FIR alleged cheating and criminal intimidation. The court has scheduled the next hearing for Sep 3, 2026.
High Court Stays Proceedings
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed all further proceedings in an FIR against luxury car dealership AMP Motors Pvt Ltd over allegations concerning a Range Rover vehicle.
Justice Sumeet Goel, while hearing a petition filed by Bhupinder Singh Anand and seven others, on Friday directed that all further proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing. The court has fixed September 3, 2026, for further proceedings in the matter.
Petitioners Challenge FIR
The petitioners have challenged the FIR dated August 30, 2025, registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar, under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). They have sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, besides protection against coercive action.
The petition was represented by Advocates Sumit Gehlot, Manju Gehlot and Rahul Garg, while Adhiraj Singh Thind, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appeared for the State and accepted notice on behalf of the State respondents.
The High Court has also directed the concerned Station House Officer to inform complainant Hari Om about the pendency of the petition and the next date of hearing and file a compliance report.
During the hearing, the petitioners, through their counsel, inter alia contended that the Punjab Police did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the FIR. Taking note of the submission, the court issued notice of motion as well as notice regarding interim relief.
Background of the Dispute
According to the petition, the dispute concerns a Range Rover owned by Sukhmaa Sons of Vijay Maan, which was brought to AMP Motors’ Gurugram showroom on November 20, 2024, for repair and servicing. The petitioners contend that the Punjab FIR is a second false criminal case arising out of the same vehicle-related dispute.
The petitioners have alleged that the complainant falsely claimed that the vehicle had been purchased from AMP Motors. They maintain that the vehicle was never purchased from AMP Motors and that the allegations forming the basis of the Punjab FIR are false and concocted.
The petition traces the dispute to an incident at the Gurugram showroom in November 2024. It states that the vehicle was brought for general repair through its driver and that during servicing, a minor scratch appeared on the front-left bumper, following which a portion of the paint protection film (PPF) peeled off. The dealership claims that its staff offered to replace the PPF on the entire front bumper.
The petitioners further allege that the driver subsequently parked the vehicle at the showroom entrance, blocking access and disrupting the functioning of the premises. AMP Motors thereafter submitted a complaint alleging wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy.
According to the petition, instead of registering an FIR on that complaint, Gurugram Police registered an FIR dated November 22, 2024, against members of the Anand family and others under provisions relating to causing hurt, obscene acts and mischief. The petitioners state that after investigation, Gurugram Police submitted a final closure report dated February 10, 2025, concluding that no offence had been found against the accused.
Allegations of ‘Counterblast’ FIR
They subsequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of the earlier FIR. On May 5, 2025, the High Court issued notice and directed the police to file a status report, including whether any proceedings had been initiated against the complainant for allegedly lodging a false complaint.
The petitioners have alleged that the subsequent Punjab FIR was registered as a “counterblast” after the proceedings before the High Court in the earlier case.
They contend that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, the ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) or criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of the BNS are not made out.
The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, along with the investigation records and status report. The petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which confers inherent powers on the High Court. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)