Mohan Lal Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20049 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohan Lal Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 November, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147596



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                                          CRM-M No. 56299 of 2024 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 12.11.2024

Mohan Lal Sharma                                              .....Petitioner
                                 versus
State of Punjab and others                                  .....Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

Present :    Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. HS Deol, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.


                                 ****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

The grievance of the petitioner, who happens to be a

complainant, is essentially of non-registration of offences by the concerned

police authorities against the private respondent despite the said authorities

having been informed of commission of cognizable offences.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

wants action to be taken against the private respondent with regard to the

commission of alleged offences in accordance with law.

3. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 provides

for ample remedy to the petitioner-complainant arising out of the cause of

non-registration of case as well as 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

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.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147596

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 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.

5. In view of the above, this Court declines interference and

relegates the petitioner 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

12.11.2024
ravinder              Whether speaking/reasoned                     √Yes/No
                      Whetherreportable                             Yes/No√




                                                  2 of 2