Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmeer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013956
120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64704-2024
Date of decision: 30.01.2025
Kashmeer Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for handing over the investigation
arising out of FIR No.55 dated 04.08.2024 under Sections
333/109/118(1)/115(2)/324(4)/309/61(2)/351(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (Section 103 of BNS added later on) registered
at Police Station Lohian District Jalandhar (Annexure P-5) to some senior
police authority not below the rank of Commissioner of Police preferably from
some other District excepting Jalandhar Punjab to ensure fair and impartial
inquiry and to nab the culprits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that on
13.06.2024 at about 08:00 P.M., when the petitioner and her family was present
at her house, they were attacked by a group of about 100 young boys headed by
Sukhjiwan Singh @ Gaggu and Amandeep Singh @ Amana, who barged into
the house with their respective weapons. She further submits that they brutally
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013956
caused beatings to Balwinder Singh i.e. husband of the petitioner who was
sitting in verandah and gave kirpan blow on his head. They pulled out the
petitioner out of kitchen and snatched her earrings and torn her shirt.
Thereafter, they broke their houses, household articles and have stolen gold
ornaments and documents from cupboard and also took away their tractor.
When the villagers started gathering, they ran away from the spot. It is thus
prayed to issue an appropriate direction to the official respondents to fairly
investigate the FIR (supra).
3. On 20.12.2024, the following order was passed:-
'Without issuing formal notice to the State, the State is directed to file
the status report with regard to the progress of investigation in case FIR
No. 55 dated 4.8.2024, under Sections 333, 109, 118(1), 115(2), 324(4),
309, 61(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNNS, 2023 and under Sections 25, 54,
59 of the Arms Act, later on added Section 103 of BNSS, 2023 on or
before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 30.1.2025.'
4. In compliance thereafter, the learned State counsel has supplied
the status report dated 16.01.2025 in the Court today and the same is taken on
record. He further refers to the status report and submits that the grievance
raised by the petitioner in the present petition has been substantially redressed.
The Investigating Agency has concluded the investigation against 16 persons
and final report has been filed against those persons. The jurisdictional police
authorities are making earnest efforts to arrest the remaining accused persons
and their warrants of arrest have already been obtained and the investigation
against the remaining accused would be concluded expeditiously. He further
submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the
remedy as available to her under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013956
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the
arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
6. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu
Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that the Magistrate has
been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Discouraging the practice of approaching the High Court
for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper
investigation, Justice Markandey Katju made the following observations:
"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a
proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly
(though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should
discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code simply because a person
has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police,
or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done
by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections
36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of
no avail, under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code before
the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200
Criminal Procedure Code and not by filing a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a
writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily
interfere."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013956
7. This ratio was reiterated in the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhange
and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki
and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728, Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi 2007(4)
R.C.R(Criminal) 115.
8. The High Courts, while exercising its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., can issue directions for prompt and proper investigation,
however, it would be out of bounds to instruct the investigation to be completed
in a certain time frame, in alignment with the opinion expressed by it. The
Courts must be conscious of its influence and not exercise the same in an
unwarranted fashion as it may prejudice the conclusion of the investigating
agency, straying further away from achieving the overarching goal of justice.
8. Further, even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped
to deal with such type of matters, learned counsel for the petitioner has not able
to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this Court directly
instead of the concerned jurisdictional Court by filing an appropriate
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to issue any such direction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed
being bereft of any merit.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
30.01.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
