Usha vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2674 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Usha vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 March, 2026

CRM-M--12401-2026                                                           1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

134                                                CRM-M-12401-2026


Usha
                                                           ....Petitioner
                                         V/s
State of Haryana and others
                                                           ....Respondents
Date of decision: 18.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 18.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

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

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

'BNSS, 2023') invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for issuance

of directions to the official respondents to register an FIR against respondent

Nos. 5 to 10 on the basis of complaint dated 13.11.2025 submitted before

the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh. The petitioner has further

prayed for issuance of directions for appointment of an independent

investigating officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to

ensure nsure a fair and impartial investigation. A further prayer has been made

seeking protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family

members on account of alleged threats extended by the private respondents.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case, as narrated in the petition

is that on 07.11.2025, a dispute arose between the family of the petitioner

and respondent No. 8 regarding water drainage which resulted in injuries to 1 of 7

the family members of the petitioner. It has been further alleged that during

the intervening night of 07/08.11.2025, the police officials along with

private respondents forcibly entered the house of the petitioner without any

warrant; used abusive language and committed acts amounting to house-

house

trespass. The petitioner has further alleged that her husband and minor son

were forcibly taken to the police station where they were subjected to

harassment and illegal detention. Furthermore, the CCTV equipment and

mobile phones were allegedly taken away by the police officials and data

was deleted to suppress the evidence. On account of the aforesaid incident,

the petitioner has submitted representations to higher authorities including

the Superintendent of Police on 13.11.2025 but no FIR has been registered.

Subsequently, FIR No. 0318 dated 14.11.2025 has been registered against

the petitioner and her family members which is alleged to be false and a

counterblast to the complaint made by the petitioner. It is in this factual

backdrop that the petitioner has sought directions ffor registration of an FIR

against respondent Nos. 5 to 10;

10 appointment of an independent

investigating officer and for the grant of security.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that on the basis

of complaint dated 13.11.2025 made by the pe petitioner, the respondent Nos.1

to 4 (herein) are not registering the FIR which is wholly illegal, arbitrary

and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel has further

iterated that the said complaint clearly discloses the commission of

cognizable offences, including house trespass at night, assault, criminal

intimidation, illegal detention, outraging the modesty of a woman and

misuse of official power by police officials yet no action has been taken by

2 of 7

the authorities. It has been further contended that the incident in question

pertains to the intervening night of 07/08.11.2025, whereby the police

officials along with private respondents have forcibly entered the residential

premises of the petitioner without any warrant or lawful authority, used

abusive language and created panic amongst the family members.

According to learned counsel, the conduct of the police officials has been in

complete violation of statutory safeguards as well as the fundamental rights

guaranteed under under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the

husband and minor son of the petitioner ha have been forcibly taken to the

police station without following the due procedure and has been illegally

detained and harassed.

harassed Learned counsel has further submitted that despite

approaching the competent authorities, including the Superintendent of

Police, Mahendergarh, by way of detailed representation dated 13.11.2025,

no FIR has been registered till date. Learned counsel has asserted that such

inaction is in direct violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh Pradesh,, wherein it has

been held that registration of FIR is mandatory where the information

discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, instead of

taking action on the complaint of the petitioner, the police authorities have

registered a false and fabricated case against the petitioner and her family

members. It has been further submitted that since the allegations in the

present nt case are directly against police officials, there is a reasonable

apprehension that any investigation conducted by the local police would not

be fair or transparent. It has, thus, been prayed that the investigation be

entrusted to an independent officer not below the rank of Superintendent of

3 of 7

Police or to any independent agency and a direction be also issued for

providing protection to the petitioner and her family members.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance

notice) has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations

regarding threats and assault are not corroborated. Furthermore, the State

cannot act solely on the version of the petitioner withou withoutt proper verification.

According to learned State counsel, the petitioner has already approached

the competent authority but no imminent threat has been established that

necessitates invoking of extraordinary intervention by this Court. According

to learned ed State counsel, the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are

wholly misconceived, unfounded and devoid of any merits. On the strength

of these submissions, the dismissal of the petition in hand is sought for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for tthe he rival parties and have

perused the paper-book.

paper

6. 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:-

"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 Magis Magistrate trate 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 isdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking 4 of 7

registration of an 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 w would ould be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke 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 isdictional Magistrate in the first instance. IV. A High Court, in its 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 underr 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."

7. The prime prayer made in the petition is the issuance of

appropriate directions to take action against res respondent Nos.5 to 10 on the

basis of complaint dated 13.11.2025 moved by the petitioner. The petitioner

has made allegations of house trespass, assault, criminal intimidation, illegal

detention, outraging the modesty of a woman and misuse of official power

by police officials but the material placed on record shows lack of

independent verification or corroborative evidence. There is no credible

evidence on record establishing immediate danger or ongoing threat to the

life of the petitioner and her family mem members or the fact that the police has

adopted a negligent and indifferent approach towards the investigation. It

appears that the police have received the complaint complaint(s)/representation(s) and

they require reasonable time to verify the allegations before the registration

of the FIR. Mere dis-satisfaction dis satisfaction of the petitioner with the investigative

steps does not ipso facto render the investigation partial or collusive. There

5 of 7

exists no material material on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that

respondent Nos.1 Nos. to 4 have failed to register an FIR, in violation of Section

154 of the Cr.P.C. No such accentuating facts/circumstances have been

brought forward by the petitioner which may wa warrant rrant 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.

8. The jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Secti Section on 528 of

the BNSS is of an extraordinary 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 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 averment avermentss or

generalized prayers, such as those seeking directions for registration of the

case,, are insufficient to compel the Court to intervene. The petitioner bears bear a

fundamental and onerous obligation to substantiate his 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; speculationn 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 constraine constrained d by the 6 of 7

principles of judicial propriety and is invoked only where there exist 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 compelled to act merely on the asking of petitioner. 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 instance, the lack of substantive evi evidence dence negates any

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

to intervene in the absence of a clear and compelling case.

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

BNSS, 2023 is dismissed.

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

                                                   (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                      JUDGE

March 18, 2026
Ajay


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




                               7 of 7