Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153579
CRM-M-58081
58081-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58081-2024
2024
Date of decision : 21.11.2024
11.2024
Suraj
aj Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
Present: Mr. Mohinder Kumar,, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, and
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )
1. The grievance of the petitioner petitioner, who happens to be the complainant, is essentially of non-registration non registration of offences by the concerned police authorities against the persons named in the representations dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) P 1) and 27.10.2024 (Annexure P P-2), despite information formation having been provided, provided vide the said representations, as regards commission of cognizable offences.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants action to be taken against the persons named in the aforesaid representat representations in accordance with law.
3. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 provides for ample remedy to the complainants/victims complainants/victims arising out of the cause of non-registration registration of case as well as non-conduction non conduction of investigation in a free, fre 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2024 20:37:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153579 CRM-M-58081 58081-2024 -2- 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 of BNSS) can very well be invoked by the complainant by filing an application before the Magistrate of the area concerned.
4. The petitioner does not appear to have availed either of the aforesaid remedies. Even the law on this point is clear in terms of judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari ari 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 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.
5. In view of the above, this Court declines interference and relegates the petitioner - complainant to avail the aforesaid remedies before the Magistrate of the area concerned.
6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE November 21, 2024 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2024 20:37:01 :::