AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks following reliefs:
direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to conduct fair and impartial investigation in FIR No. 81 dated 11.05.2026, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar;
direction to official respondents to consider and decide representation dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid FIR was registered on complaint of the petitioner, who was assaulted by the accused persons with iron rods etc. resulting in multiple injuries including a head injury, which rendered him unconscious. Petitioner remained admitted in hospital. The principal accused was an influential person and managed to get FIR registered under less serious offences by exerting pressure upon the police authorities. Learned counsel further submits that FIR was registered against three accused and respondent No. 4 had been intentionally left out by the police, although, his name was subsequently mentioned by the petitioner in his representation Annexure P-3 dated 02.06.2026. It is submitted that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied if appropriate direction is issued to the respondent No. 2- Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar District Jalandhar, to consider and decide representation dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) moved by petitioner and take necessary action thereupon in a time bound manner.
Notice of motion to official respondents only.
Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and submits that FIR has been registered against all the accused persons involved in the offence and named in the FIR. All three accused had been arrested and considering the nature of injuries, Sections 115(2) and 117(2) BNS had been invoked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, if she so desires.
Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.