Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others

134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 13.08.2026

…PETITIONERS V/S

…RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks following directions to official respondent No.3:-

To register FIR on the basis of complaint, Annexure P3.

To conduct fair, impartial and expeditious investigation.

To file final report before the competent Court within a period of 60 days.

To record statements of petitioners being senior citizens and women victims under Section 180 BNSS.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were in peaceful, continuous, lawful possession of agricultural land in respect of which a status quo order was passed by Joint Development Commissioner IRD, Punjab. Members of the village panchayat violated the status quo order by illegally conducting auction of the land. Private respondents along with

their associates unlawfully destroyed standing crop on the land and forcibly cut down 600 populus deltoides (popular) trees, threatening to kill the petitioners. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken.

Notice of motion to official respondents only.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents and submits that petitioners’ representation was received by respondent No.3 and recommendation was made to file the complaint as the matter was subjudice in the Court.

In Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No.2325 of 2026, date of decision 04.05.2026, the Apex Court while referring to its previous decisions in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine 2510, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, observed as under:-“7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. 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 conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS') (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC')) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS.

Considering the nature of dispute between the petitioners and private respondents and pendency of proceedings before the competent Court, there is no ground to issue any directions to respondent No.3 to register FIR on the basis of complaint.

The petition stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 13.08.2026