[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 24 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
CRM-M-22705-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2026
SEEMA RANI
PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 seeks following reliefs:
i) Registration of FIR against respondents No.4 to 7 for assaulting,
demanding dowry, giving death threats etc.
ii) Direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to expedite investigation
proceedings against respondents No.4 to 7.
iii) Direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure security of life,
liberty and property of the petitioner and her other family
members including mother and brother, from respondents No.4
to 7.
iv) Direction to respondent No.2 to decide representation dated
12.09.2025 and taking appropriate legal action against
respondents No.4 to 7; to decide application/complaint dated
01.11.2025 for transferring the inquiry from Police Station Sadar
Rajpura to any competent authority for proper and fair
investigation; representation dated 28.11.2025 sent to Chairman
Human Rights Commission, Punjab for taking appropriate legal
action against respondents No.4 to 7.
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.04.24 18:50
I agree to specified portions of
this document
CRM-M-22705-2026 (O&M) -2-
v) Direction to the official respondents to decide representation
dated 27.01.2026 at the earliest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
married with respondent No.4 on 10.10.2011. Disputes arose between the
parties and petitioner got FIR No.21 dated 23.04.2015 under Sections 406,
498-A IPC, Police Station Women Cell, Patiala, registered against the private
respondents. A compromise was reached between the parties and the FIR was
quashed by this Court on 02.09.2024. The parties obtained divorce by mutual
consent. Petitioner and respondent No.4 both performed second marriage.
After second husband of the petitioner expired and respondent No.4 also
divorced his second wife, petitioner remarried respondent No.4 on
27.03.2025. Mother-in-law of the petitioner lodged FIR No.122 dated
30.10.2025 under Sections 115(2), 127(7), 75, 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 against petitioner, her mother and
brother, wherein police had recommended cancellation report. After the
marriage in 2025, private respondents again started demanding dowry from
the petitioner and her family members and brutally assaulted her. In this
regard, various complaints were moved by the petitioner but no action was
taken thereon. It is prayed that respondent No.2 be directed to take appropriate
legal action on the complaints of the petitioner.
3. Notice of motion to official respondents only.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Circle Rajpura submits that various complaints and
representations were moved by the petitioner on 12.09.2025, 31.12.2025,
12.01.2026 and 29.01.2026. Inquiry was conducted in the complaints and
finding no merit therein, the complaints were consigned.
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.04.24 18:50
I agree to specified portions of
this document
CRM-M-22705-2026 (O&M) -3-
5. In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409,
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR
under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it
no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to
file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned
Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is
filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be
registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a
case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper
investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same
provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
6. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and
others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person
has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or
having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then
the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the
Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is made and the Magistrate
is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it
has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be
done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary,
recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper
investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu
case because what we have found in this country is that the High
Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration
of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.04.24 18:50
I agree to specified portions of
this document
CRM-M-22705-2026 (O&M) -4-
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ
petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will
not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ
petitions.
Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate
remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3)
CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he
is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure
a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the
investigation."
6. Similar were observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341.
7. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) BNSS), is wide
enough and empowers a Magistrate to pass orders for registration of FIR, such
other orders as may be necessary for monitoring investigation and for ensuring
proper investigation. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the
petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary remedy under Section 528 Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not warranted.
8. The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail
alternative remedy, if she so desires.
9. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
24.04.2026
HS.CHAUHAN
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.04.24 18:50
I agree to specified portions of
this document
