Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 569 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229




CRM-M--64966-2024                                                         1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM
                                               CRM-M-64966-2024
                                               Date of decision: 07.01.2025
Sukhchain Singh
                                                        ....Petitioner

                                         V/s

State of Punjab and others
                                                        ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj,, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as the

'BNSS, 2023') seeking directions to respondent Nos.

Nos.2 and 3 to decide the

representation dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P P-1) of the petitioner as also to

protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private

respondents i.e. respondent No.4 to 16.

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, petition

are that on 01.11.2024 the private respondents i.e. respondents Nos.4 to 16

are causing disturbance in front of the house of the petitioner by firing shots

in the air with a pistol. When the petitioner confronted them, they issued

threats to him. Following the incident, the petitioner had lodged a complaint

on 01.11.2024, after which the police took the tractor of the private

respondent into its custody. However, no further measures/steps were taken respondents

by the Police to ensure the protection of the petitioner. It was further alleged

that three days later, the police had released the tractor of the private 1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

respondents whereupon they again started causing disturbance outside the

house of the petitioner and issued threats as also openly proclaiming that no

one can take action against them. They further warned the petitioner that

any further complaint(s) complaint by him would meet the same outcome. Thereafter,

the petitioner filed another complaint on 11.11.2024 which was sent via

registered post to respondent Nos.2 and 3 (herein).. However, no action has

been taken till date. It was further alleged that upon learning of the second

complaint made by the petitioner,, the private respondents allegedly

threatened reatened the petitioner and warned him that any further complaint would

lead to severe consequences including potential physical harm to him.. The

petitioner has alleged that despite bringing these threats to the attention of

the police authorities, no substantial substantial action has been taken by the police.

Instead the petitioner has been subjected to undue harassment, including

being called to the police station and detained there for the entire day

without any progress on the matter. The petitioner further alle alleged ged that the

inaction of the police authorities has eroded public trust in the justice

system. Furthermore, the private respondents have continued to subject the

petitioner to mental harassment by taunting and threatened him to implicate

him in a false case.

case. Thus, the petitioner has been left with no alternative but

seek intervention of this Court to direct the official respondents to take

prompt and necessary actionn against the private respondents.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the private

respondents in connivance with each other are threatening the petitioner.

Learned counsel has further iterated that the Section 173(1) of the BNSS,

2023 mandates that every cognizable offence, including allegations of 2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

physical and emotional abuse, must be recorded by the Officer in charge of

the Police Station. Despite the detailed representation dated 11.11.2024

(Annexure P-1) P ) of the petitioner outlining serious offences such as threats to

his life, the authorities have have failed to fulfill their statutory obligations. It is

further submitted that the private respondents are politically influential and

headstrong individuals and openly question the effectiveness of the Police

and threatened to implicate the petitioner in false case. Learned earned counsel hs

highlighted that under Section 173(4), if the Officer in charge fails to act, the

petitioner has the right to escalate his complaint to the Superintendent of

Police, who is statutorily obligated to investigate or direct an investigation

upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, despite providing

overwhelming evidence to the Police, no action has been taken against the

private respondents, which raised suspicion about inertia of the police.

Learned counsel has further further argued that a direction be issued to the Police to

provide protection to the petitioner as he is apprehending immediate danger

to his life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents as also to direct

the official respondents to comply with ttheir statutory duties. Thus, the

petitioner has been constrained to file the instant petition seeking the

prayer(s) as indicated hereinabove.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused

the paper--book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court

passed in CRM-M-34678-2024 titled as AXXXX vs. vs. State of Punjab

and others, decided on 31.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

"11. As a sequel to above rumination, the following postulates of law emerge:

I. An Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate has; by virtue of Sections 173 and 175 of BNSS, 2023; the necessary powers and jurisdiction to grant plea(s) for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, change of investigating officer and prayer(s) of alike nature.

II. Ordinarily, an applicant/complainant ought to approach, in the first instance, the Court of Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek prayer(s) for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR as also other prayers of akin nature.

III. In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an n FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such kind and nature. However, it would be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invok invokee the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate in the first instance. IV. A High Court, in itss inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. The only restriction on exercise of such powers is self-restraint.

restraint. No inflexible and comprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by a High Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case."

5. The prime prayer made in the petition is that despite clear

evidence of serious offences, including creating ruckus outside his house,

causing harassment and mental torture etc. etc.,, the Police have failed to register

an FIR and take appropriate legal action against the private respondents. The

petitioner (herein) who claims himself to be a victim of harassment and

mental torture has chosen to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of th this is Court 4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 without even referring to, much less

disclosing any impediment being faced by him in approaching the concerned

Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking Section 175 of BNSS, 2023. In

the considered opinion of this this Court, the petitioner ought to have approached

the concerned Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate in the first instance who is

well empowered to grant the substantial relief(s) sought for in the present

petition. No such accentuating facts/circumstances hav havee been brought

forward by the petitioner which may warrant interference by this Court

under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, this Court does not find the

present case a fit one for exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023.

6. The he prayer that next requires to be addressed is to provide

protection to the petitioner as he is apprehending danger to his life and

liberty at the hands of private respondents. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the allegations of repeated physical assault, mental harassment or

degrading treatment that endangers the well being of the petitioner are

without any cogent and credible evidence to substantiate such claims. The

jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is of

an extraordinary traordinary and discretionary character, necessitating careful and

judicious invocation. It is a trite principle of law that such jurisdiction is not

to be exercised in routine or perfunctory matters, but solely in circumstances

that unequivocally warrant the intervention of the Court to prevent manifest

injustice or irreparable harm. The Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary

powers, is not a forum for speculative grievances or unsubstantiated

apprehensions. Mere averments or generalized prayers, such as those 5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

seeking directions for protection, are insufficient to compel the Court to

intervene. The petitioner bears a fundamental and onerous obligation to

substantiate their allegations with cogent, credible, and prima facie evidence

that demonstrates a real and immediate threat or an act of injustice requiring

redress. It would be appropriate to refer herein to an age old adage:

"Judicial judgment must be informed and guided by the evidence on record; speculation or surmises has no place in the Court of Law"

It is well-settled settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court

is intended to supplement, not supplant, the ordinary remedies available

under the general law. This jurisdiction is inherently constrained by the

principles of judicial propriety and is invoked only where there exists no

efficacious alternative remedy, or where failure to act would result in the

miscarriage of justice. Absent sufficient material or evidentiary basis, the

Court cannot be compelled to act merely on the asking of a pe petitioner.

titioner. To do

so would undermine the very sanctity and purpose of its extraordinary

jurisdiction, reducing it to a mechanism for frivolous or unwarranted claims.

In the present case,, the lack of substantive evidence negates any justification

for the exercise exercise of such powers, and the Court finds no occasion to intervene

in the absence of a clear and compelling case.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023 stands dismissed. Needless to state herein that this Court has

not ot delved into the merits of the matter and the same is left open to be

considered in appropriate proceedings, if so initiated. There is no gainsaying

that the petitioner, if so advised, will be at liberty to file an appropriate

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000229

petition, inter alia, under Section 175 of BNSS, 2023 for redressal of his

grievance(s), in accordance with law.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE January 07, 07 2025 Ajay

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

7 of 7