Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx
2026 Latest Caselaw 3276 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 10 April, 2026

                                                                                                 -1-
            CRM-M-58106
                  58106-2025 (O&M)

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                            CRM-M-58106-20252025 (O&M)
                                            Reserved on : 26.02.2026
                                            Date of Decision/Pronouncement ::- 10.04.2026
                                            Date of uploading: 10.
                                                               10.04.2026

            Dr. Amit Sofat and Anr.

                                                                                     ......Petitioners

                                                        Versus


            State of Punjab
                                                                                    ......Respondent

            CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEALOK JAIN
                                     ****

            Present:           Dr. Sumeet
                                   Sum Sofat, petitioner No.2 in person and
                               on behalf of petitioner No.1.
                               (through VC).


                               Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.


                                     ****
            ALOK JAIN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS

seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, whereby an application

under section 175(3) BNSS was dismissed and further raised challenge to the

impugned judgment dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision petition filed against the

order dated 25.04.2025 was also dismissed.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the cas case, it is pertinent to record

that the petitioners were given the information to seek legal assistance from

Aid Counsel so that the legal queries, if any any, raised by the Court are to

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

be addressed to which the petitioner No.2 has refused and submitted that he

would argue the matter and maintains that he is also a law graduate.

3. The brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present

petition,, as contended by petitioner p No. 2,, are that both the petitioners belong

to a reputed family and are medical practitioners, also having hospital in the

name of "Dr. Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital"

Hospital" at Ludhiana. It is the case of the

petitioners that on 18.12.2024 at about 6:00 AM, certain officials of the

Income Tax Department, accompanied by armed personnel, conduc conducted

simultaneous search and seizure operations at the residence and hospital of

petitioners etitioners on the basis of 'allegedly' false information. It is further contended

that the officials forcibly entered the premises, without proper identification

and conducted the entire raid in complete disregard to the statutory

provisions, guidelines, and settled legal procedure.

4. The petitioner petitioner further alleged that the search operation continued

for two nights and three days i.e. from 18.12.2024 to 20.12.2024, during

which petitioner etitioner No. 1 and his family members were wrongfully confined

within the premises, their mobile phones and elect electronic devices were

confiscated,, and were subjected to threats, intimidation, and continuous

coercion. It is further alleged that CCTV systems and Wi Wi-Fi connections were

disabled to conceal the acts of the officials. The petitioners allege alleged that there

has been the blatant abuse of power by the IT officials as they used abusive

language even against female members of the their family, and committed acts

outraging their modesty. It is specifically alleged that the wife of petitioner

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

No. 1 was subjected to illegal physical frisked by the male IT officials. The

misdeed of the official did not stop there, but they had also committed grave

acts of custodial violence against petitioner etitioner No. 1, including physical assault,

torture, and an attempt to drown him, in order to extract confessional

statements and disclosure regarding alleged undisclosed assets. To

substantiate the said allegations petitioner No.2, also relies upon the medico-

legal examination of petitioner No.1, o.1, that was conducted on 21.12.2024, to

demonstrate that at the injuries were sustained during custodial assault.

5. It is further contended that the ppetitioner No.1 was forced to

produce bank locker keys and was taken to bank premises, where jewellery

and foreign currency were seized. The main issue issues raised by the petitioners

are with regard to the raid proceedings,, which had been conducted in an

illegal manner, as the statements were recorded at night, their earlier

statements were substituted, ed, sealed articles were ttampered and part of the

seized valuables were misappropriated.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the raid at the hospital

premises was conducted in the absence of petitioners or their family members

and the cash, jewellery, and a laptop were misappropriated. Moreover, no

independent witnesses witnesses from the locality were associated during the search,

and that the panchnamas were fabricated by obtaining signatures of

incompetent persons. The petitioners raised serious concern with regard to the

disruption of medical care of admitted patients, tthereby endangering their

lives.

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

7. Petitioner further pointed out that not only the financial data but

also the private and intimate data stored in mobile phones of petitioner No. 1

and his wife was accessed, copied, and transmitted by the officials witho without

their consent, thereby violating their fundamental right to privacy.

8. Petitioner has raised the grievance that multiple complaints have

been submitted to the concerned police authorities, seeking registration of

FIR,, however, no action has been taken against the erring officials. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioners petitioner had filed an application under Section 175(3) BNSS

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, seeking

directions for registration of FIR, FIR, which came to be dismissed vide impugned

order dated 25.04.2025. Consequently, the he revision petition had been filed

against which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 03.09.2025, 03.09.2025, hence hence, the present petition.

9. Petitioner has brought to the fore the entire sequence of alleged

misconduct on the part of the officials and has vehemently contended that the

actions complained of are not mere procedural irregularities, but reflects a

conscious misuse of power, power resulting in flagrant vviolation of statutory

safeguards and established legal norms along with infringement of the

petitioners' fundamental and legal rights, thereby warranting strict judicial

scrutiny and appropriate intervention.

10. Petitioner further argued that the learned Trial Court has fell in

error while dismissing the application under section 175(3) BNSS, without

properly appreciating the evidence and the material on record, thereby leaving

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

the petitioners remediless. Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'bl Hon'ble

Supreme Court passed in the case "Lalita Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar

Pradesh" (2014)2 SCC1, to contend that registration of FIR is mandatory

where information discloses a cognizable offence, and that sanction under

Section 197 Cr.P.C. ( Section 218 of BNSS) is not required at the stage of

directing registration of FIR when the acts alleged are not reasonably

connected with the discharge of official duties. Petitioner submits that despite

seriousness of the allegations, no action has been taken against the officials. It

is submitted that although the law provides protections to the public servants

which is safeguard from vexatious litigations, litigations, however, the said protection

does not, in any manner, manner permits to transgress the boundaries of privacy and

the scope ope of official functions.

11. Petitioner while concluding his arguments submits that in view

of the facts of the case and the settled principle of law, the present petition

deserves to be allowed, as the petitioner cannot be left remediless against the

illegal acts of the officials.

12. Per contra, contra, learned State counsel submits that the Court of

JMIC, Ludhiana, has specifically recorded that the petitioners were given the

option i.e. complaint could be treated as private complaint and they should

lead preliminary evidence to support the allegations but the petitioners refused

and reiterated erated that they have duly recorded in Para 43 of their complaint

wherein the petitioners have specifically denied that they cannot produce any

electronic evidence which is in possession of the accused. The learned trial

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

Court has rightly returned the finding that the intention of the petitioners was

only to get an FIR lodged against the Income Tax Official and the petitioners

themselves got preserved the CCTV footage installed at IDBI Bank but still

chose not to bring forth any evidence.

13. It is further furt submitted that the impugn impugned orders passed by the

learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are well-reasoned and do

not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

It is contended that the allegations levelled by the petitioners arise out of a

search and seizure operation conducted by officials of the Income Tax

Department in the course of discharge of their statutory duties, and the

petitioners attempt to give a criminal colour to the said raid proceedings

conducted ducted by the officials by levelling exaggerated and unsubstantiated

allegations.

14. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after examining the complaint as well as the

material placed on record, record, found no sufficient grounds to issue directions for

registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS and consequently,

dismissed the application.

application

15. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are not

remediless and have other efficacious remedies available in law. It is

contended that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the conduct of the officials

during the search and seizure proceedings, or if there was any illegality or

infringement of their legal rights, then they have the liberty to approach the

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

competent authorities in accordance with law law. On these premises, learned

State counsel submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial

Court as well as the Revisionist Court do not suffer from any error apparent or

perversity.. Hence, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be

dismissed.

16. Heard the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel, and

perused the material placed on record.

17. Apparently the allegations raised by the petitioners arise out of a

search and seizure operation conducted by officials of the Income Tax

Department at the residential and hospital premises of petitioner No.1. The

petitioners have levelled serious allegations regarding alleged assault, illegal

confinement and other irregularities during the course of the raid. The learned

Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the material pl placed on record,

declined to issue directions for registration of FIR, and the said order has been

affirmed by the revisional Court.

18. The entire gamut of the allegation emanates from the MLR of

petitioner No.1 and the same as found the basis of the reli relief sought.

However, itt is pertinent to note that, admittedly, the raid concluded on

20.12.2024 around 11:45 p.m. but petitioner etitioner No.1, despite being a medical

professional, sought medico-legal medico legal examination only on 21.12.2024 at around

6:00 p.m. The said conduct, conduct, viewed in the attending circumstances, gives rise

to a reasonable inference that the same was done with an intent to create

evidence in the form of an MLR cannot be ruled out, especially when the

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

MLR does not disclose or specify as to who caused the alleged injuries, nor

does it indicate the time, manner, or circumstances in which such injuries

were sustained. It appears that the present petition and the litigation initiated

are only with a view to pressurize the Government officials who were

performing ng their official duties. In case the petitioners were really aggrieved

by the act and conduct of the officials and the same was in violation of the

provisions of law, they should have immediately approached the higher

authorities of the Income Tax Department.

Department. However, it is not forthcoming

whether any such recourse was taken or not.

19. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court

demonstrates that there are allegations by the petitioners that the Government

officials stole Rs. 9.67 lakhs from from their house, along with 4200 US dollars and

other jewellery items. However, the petitioners are silent with regard to the

source of such money,, which is probably the reason why the Income Tax

authorities, initiated proceedings against them. The learned ttrial Court, during

the pendency of the said complaint, had called for a report from the concerned

SHO, but since the documents were sought from the Income Tax Department Department,

which were refused, the report was filed accordingly.

20. It is apposite to consider that the learned trial Court, in fact,

passed a legal and valid order that the said complaint could be treated as a

private complaint, so that the petitioners could bring preliminary evidence.

However, they blatantly refused to do so, which led to the dis dismissal of the

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

complaint. The relevant relevant para of the order passed by the learned trial Court as

under:

"xxx xxx Record perused. During the pendency of the instant application a report from SHO PS Division No. 8 was called vide which he has reported that an enquiry is being conducted by the police. He further submitted that some documents were sought from the inc income tax authorities but they refused the same on the ground that since they are investigating the matter under Income Tax Act against complainant and his other family members so disclosure of those documents would certainly effect their investigation. Now in order to support his claim complainant has filed copies of affidavits of his family members. However in view of this court the circumstances of the present case are so that no any direction for registration of FIR etc. against the accused could be issue issued. As per allegations of the complainant himself accused are public servants who were performing their duty under Income Tax Act 1961. The matter is still being investigated by the income tax authorities. Any direction for registration of FIR against incomee tax authorities on the allegations of the complainant would effect the morale of income tax authorities who are conducting an investigation against complainant and his other family members. During the course of arguments an option was given to the complainant inant that if he want his complaint could be treated as a private complaint and he has to lead preliminary evidence supporting his allegations but he read out para No. 43 of his complaint wherein he specifically stated that he doesn't want that his complai complaint shall be treated as a

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

private complaint since he cannot produce the electronic evidence which is in the possession of accused. But in view of this court from the above said fact the intention of the complainant has been got cleared that he just want to get lodged an FIR against Income Tax authorities and nothing else. During the course of instant inquiry complainant himself has requested this court that CCTV camera footage installed at IDBI Bank may be preserved, which was preserved by the concerned bank on the directions of this court. If all the things have happened the way as it has been mentioned in the complaint then this court believe that complainant shall not have any hitch in producing the evidence. Since complainant himself does not want that hi his application shall be treated as a private complaint so the instant complaint stands dismissed. Let papers be consigned to record room after due compliance."

21. Subsequently, the Revisional Court again adjudicated the matter

and while dismissing the revision revision still again granted liberty to the petitioners

that the dismissal of the revision would not operate as a bar to institute a

private complaint. The relevant extract of the order passed by the revisional

Court, which reads as under:

1. "23. So, in view of the above discussion, the revision petition is found devoid of any merit and is dismissed alongwith all pending applications in this revision. Order dated 25.4.2025 is hereby upheld and maintained. However this order would not operate as a bar upon the revisionist to institute a private criminal complaint Under section 223 of BNSS before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate and this order is confined to the provisions of

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

section 175 (3) BNSS only. In the eventuality of submission of Private Criminal Complaint by the the complainant if any in future for the same offence, the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate shall proceed with the same without being influenced of this order passed in revision. Record of the Court of Ld. Magistrate Ludhiana along along-

with copy of order be sent back to th the quarter concerned. Where as revision file be consigned to the record room."

22. The petitioners have also not been able to demonstrate by any

cogent proof or even prima facie evidence much less brought before this

Court even in these proceedings except for the MLR (Annexure P-1) which

does not inspire confidence. This Court, while exercising inherent

jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisionist Court unless the same are

shown to be patently illegal, perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error.

No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the impugned orders.

23. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction under Section 175(3)

BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) is discretionary in

nature and is to be exercised by the Magistrate upon satisfaction that the facts

disclose and warrant investigation by the police. The Learned Trial Court as

well as the Revisionist Court have considered the all allegations and the

materials placed on record and have concurrently held that the circumstances

of the case did not warrant any such issuance of directions for registration of

FIR.

24. In light of the aforesaid factual matrix and the concurrent

findings recorded orded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisionist Court Court,

CRM-M-58106 58106-2025 (O&M)

this Court finds that the impugned orders are well well-reasoned, legally sound,

and in consonance with the settled principles governing the exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 175(3) BNSS, BNSS 2023.. The petitioners have failed to

demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting

interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers powers. The present

petition appears to be an attempt to re-agitate re agitate issues already been duly

considered and rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court as well as the

Revisionist Court.

Court

25. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same

stands dismissed.

26. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE April 10, 2026.

manju

Whether speaking/reasoned:-

                    speaking/reasoned:            Yes
            Whether Reportable:-
                    Reportable:                   Yes