Jagdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20712 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153602



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH



                                        CRM
                                        CRM-M No.57850 of 2024 (O&M)

                                        Date of Decision: 21.11.2024

Jagdev Singh                                              .....Petitioner

                   Versus

State of Punjab and others                                 .....Respondents


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

Present :   Mr. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate,
            (through v.c.) for the petitioner.

            Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
            with Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Deputy Advocate General,
            Punjab.
                            ****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) 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 private respondents No. 5 to 7

despite the said authorities having been informed of commission of

cognizable offences.

2. Learned counsel for the peti petitioners submits that the

petitioner wants action to be taken against the respondents in accordance

with law.

3. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023

provides for ample remedy to the complainant complainant/victim arising out of the

cause of non-registration ation 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)

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153602

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 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 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

21.11.2024
ravinder             Whether speaking/reasoned                         √Yes/No
                     Whetherreportable                                 Yes/No√




                                                  2 of 2