AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
The petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeks following relief:-
direction to officials respondents to act in consonance with Section 18A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 read with Rule 5 of SC/ST Act.
direction to official respondents to decide the representation dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P-8) in a time bound manner
direction to official respondents to conduct investigation strictly in terms of Rule 7 of SC/ST Act through a senior police official.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was an ex-serviceman having retired from Indian Army, belonged to Ramdasia Scheduled Caste. After retirement, he joined District Defence Services Welfare Department on 05.07.2006 and was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. He further submits that petitioner was being constantly harassed by his superior officers who belong to upper caste and harboured hatred against the Scheduled Caste employees. Petitioner was assigned clerical work despite his posting as Superintendent Grade-II. His name was not even mentioned in the office board. Respondents No. 4 to 6 insulted and abused the petitioner in public view by using derogatory words. He was abused by name of his caste. The matter was reported to the police seeking registration of the FIR but no effective action was taken.
Notice of motion to official respondents only.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents No.1 to 3-State. He submits that police had conducted the inquiry in the representation of the petitioner. During inquiry, nothing came to light regarding allegations. Since no truth was found in the allegations, no action was taken in the complaint.
In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 also, 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.
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."
Similar were observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341.
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.
8.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.
The police has not opted to take any action on petitioner's complaint. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is not warranted. Petitioner may avail the remedy available to him, as per law.
The petition stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.