Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20370 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 November, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149948




(109)


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                                   CRM-M-57105-2024 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision:- 18.11.2024

            Vinod Kumar
                                                                  ...Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus

            State of Punjab and others
                                                                ...Respondent(s)

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


Present:-   Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate,
            for the petitioner(s).

        Mr. Gagneshwar Singh Walia, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
                             ****
SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL)

1. The grievance of the petitioner, who happens to be the

complainant/victim, is essentially of non-registration of offence(s) by the

concerned police authorities against respondents No. 6 and 7 despite the said

authorities having been informed of commission of cognizable offence(s).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

wants action to be taken against the private respondents No. 6 and 7 with

regard to the commission of alleged offence(s) in accordance with law.

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

for ample remedy to the 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 the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Section 223 of BNSS) can very well be invoked by the

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149948

CRM-M-57105-2024 (O&M) -2-

complainant/victim 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 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 complainant/victim 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

18.11.2024
Amodh Sharma

               Whether speaking/reasoned                  Yes/No
               Whether reportable                         Yes/No




                                           2 of 2