Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M
M No.56840 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.11.2024
Jagdish .....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
Present : Mr. B.S.Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Masta, Advocate for Union of India.
****
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) ral) The grievance of the petitioner petitioner, who happens to be the complainant, is essentially of non-registration non registration of offences by the respondents despite the said authorities having been informed of commission of cognizable offences.
2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 202 2023 3 provides for ample remedy to the complainant complainants/victims arising out of the cause of non-registration registration of case as well as non non-conduction conduction of investigation in a free, fair and expeditious manner. The provision of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 175 of BNSS) and Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 223 ooff BNSS) can very well be invoked by the complainant by filing an application before the Magistrate of the area concerned.
3. The petitioner does not appear to have availed either of the aforesaid remedies. Even the law on this point is clear in tterms erms of judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Lalita 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2024 14:04:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152267 CRM-M No. 56840 of 2024 (O&M) [2] Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held that once the information/complaint reveals commission of cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has made certain exceptions to the extent that police can conduct enquiry before registration of FIR but only to ascertain whether cognizable offence has been committed or not especially in complicated offences and special offences etc.
4. In view of the above, this Court declines interference and relegates the complainant to avail the aforesaid remedies before the Magistrate of the area concerned.
5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
20.11.2024
ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Whetherreportable Yes/No√
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2024 14:04:52 :::