AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks following reliefs:-
Direction to official respondent No.2 to conduct fair and impartial investigation in FIR No.0062 dated 05.04.2026 under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, P.S. City Sangrur, District Sangrur and to transfer investigation to some independent agency.
Direction to official respondent No.2 to protect life and liberty of petitioners and their family members at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were confined in jail in a criminal case. Unable to arrange surety, their family members paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.4 in good faith to arrange surety. Aforementioned FIR was wrongly registered against the petitioners who were victims of fraudulent act of private respondents. The surety and identifier were brought by respondent No.4 and petitioners never met them at any point of time. Later, when allegations regarding fake surety surfaced, they themselves approached the Court for furnishing fresh surety. Petitioners neither forged any document nor entered into any criminal conspiracy with the alleged fake surety or identifier and no offence was made out against them. They neither had any knowledge nor any participation in the alleged criminal act. The FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. In fact, petitioners were themselves victims of fraud by respondent No.4 to whom Rs.20,000/- was paid for arranging surety. It was respondent No.4 who received the money and was engaged in the business of arranging surety. No recovery was effected from the petitioners. Investigating agency failed to examine the role of respondent No.4 or to recover the call detail records. Referring to Sumit Sharma and Another Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-6979-2024, date of decision 17.09.2025, it was urged that mere furnishing of a false surety without proof of knowledge or participation in forgery did not constitute any offence. The prayer is to direct official respondents to conduct fair and proper investigation.
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.
Investigation is at nascent stage. There is no reason to suspect that investigation of the case is not being conducted fairly or impartially. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, invocation of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the facts of the case is not warranted.
The prayer for protection of life and liberty has not been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioners. He prays that he may be permitted to challenge the FIR by filing a quashing petition.
The petition stands disposed of, with liberty as prayed for.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.