Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Kaur Alias Surinder Kaur And ... vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153594
CRM-M-58104
58104-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58104-2024
2024
Date of decision : 21.11.2024
11.2024
Harinder Kaur alias Surinder Kaur and another
.......Petitioners
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
Present: Ms. Harpreet K. Gill,, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, and
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )
1. The grievance of the petitioners, who happen to be the complainant, is essentially of non-registration non registration of offences by the concerned police authorities against the private respondents despite information having been provided by petitioner No.1 vide representation dated 02.07.2024 .2024 (Annexure P-6) P as regards commission of cognizable offences.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners submits that the petitioners petitioner want action to be taken against the private respondents in accordance with law.
3. The he 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, 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 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2024 20:41:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153594 CRM-M-58104 58104-2024 -2- 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 petitioners do 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 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 po police lice 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 egates the petitioners 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 20:41:06 :::