CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jarnail Singh and others State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: 2011 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jarnail Singh and others Versus Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for petitioners No.1 to 3. Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab (arguing counsel), with Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.7 and 8. Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), Ms. Ashima Attri, Advocate, and Ms. Sanya Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.9. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), with Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate, and Mr. Rahu Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), with Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate, and Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate, for respondent No.11. Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate, for CBI. **** -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) Date of decision : 09.04.2026 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. .S. Randhawa, Advocate, for Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), with Ms. Ashima Attri, Advocate, and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing) Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate, and for respondent No.10. Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), with Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate, and Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate, for CBI. 2011 ( O&M ) 09.04.2026 …….Petitioners ...….Respondents (through video conferencing) NAROTAM DASS 2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. reliefs : “i ii iii iv v) vi 2. interlocutory orders including that of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. other respondents, including the State of Punjab, have also filed their separa replies. 4. land in village Mandi Khurd, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, on 2011 ( O&M ) SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) This petition has been filed “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for handing over the investigation of the present matter of acquisition of land at village Ma undue benefit of around Rs. 5,62,80,490/ given to four politically influential families at the cost of Government Exchequer, to an independent investigating agency preferably C.B.I. ii) and issue a writ or direction to the re to install or shift to some alternate place, the Municipal Waste land Fill Facility, proposed at village Mandi Khurd in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the Writ Petition; iii) issue any other writ, order or direction as th Court may deem appropriate in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present writ petition iv) xxx xxx xxx v) xxx xxx xxx vi) xxx xxx xxx” After this Court had taken cognizance of the matter, certain interlocutory orders were passed, asking for responses of the respondents, including that of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI filed abbreviated status report dated 06.01.2014. The other respondents, including the State of Punjab, have also filed their separa The allegations in this PIL are in respect of acquisition of certain land in village Mandi Khurd, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, on -2- ( Oral ) filed as PIL praying for the following Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for handing over the investigation of the present matter of acquisition of land at village Mandi Khurd, in which undue benefit of around Rs. 5,62,80,490/- has been given to four politically influential families at the cost of Government Exchequer, to an independent investigating agency preferably C.B.I.; and issue a writ or direction to the respondents to not to install or shift to some alternate place, the Municipal Waste land Fill Facility, proposed at village Mandi Khurd in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the Writ Petition; issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present writ petition; ” After this Court had taken cognizance of the matter, certain were passed, asking for responses of the respondents, including that of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI filed abbreviated status report dated 06.01.2014. The other respondents, including the State of Punjab, have also filed their separa The allegations in this PIL are in respect of acquisition of certain land in village Mandi Khurd, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, on praying for the following After this Court had taken cognizance of the matter, certain were passed, asking for responses of the respondents, The CBI filed abbreviated status report dated 06.01.2014. The other respondents, including the State of Punjab, have also filed their separate The allegations in this PIL are in respect of acquisition of certain land in village Mandi Khurd, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, on NAROTAM DASS 2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) account of which undue benefit of around Rs. 5,62,80,490/ afforded to four political exchequer. Respondents No.6 to 10 were the persons, against allegations were made. 5. filed. 6. an FIR has been lodged and the petitioners are asking for handing over investigation, being conducted by the local police, to the CBI reality being petitioners have not filed any complaint police/competent of FIR does not arise. 7. the same has been filed only for considerati consideration of the police/competent investigative authority. 8. is/are cognizable, th to Section 154 Cr.P.C.) or any other equivalent provision in the penal enactment, is to inform the police/competent commission of cognizable offence(s), orally or in writing. 9. approached the police/competent hanging fire for the last more than 14 years. 2011 ( O&M ) account of which undue benefit of around Rs. 5,62,80,490/ afforded to four politically influential families at the cost of the Government exchequer. Respondents No.6 to 10 were the persons, against allegations were made. In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, this petition was The first prayer, as re-produc an FIR has been lodged and the petitioners are asking for handing over investigation, being conducted by the local police, to the CBI being that there has been no registration of any FIR till date. Si petitioners have not filed any complaint police/competent investigative authority, therefore, the question of registration of FIR does not arise. The CBI’s abbreviated status report indicts certain me has been filed only for considerati consideration of the police/competent investigative authority. In matters of this nature, where a person alleges offence are cognizable, the first step to be taken u/s 173 to Section 154 Cr.P.C.) or any other equivalent provision in the penal enactment, is to inform the police/competent ission of cognizable offence(s), orally or in writing. The glaring fact in the present case is that the petitioners had not approached the police/competent investigative hanging fire for the last more than 14 years. -3- account of which undue benefit of around Rs. 5,62,80,490/- was allegedly ly influential families at the cost of the Government exchequer. Respondents No.6 to 10 were the persons, against whom In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, this petition was produced above, gives an impression that an FIR has been lodged and the petitioners are asking for handing over investigation, being conducted by the local police, to the CBI. Whereas the that there has been no registration of any FIR till date. Since the petitioners have not filed any complaint (first information) to the authority, therefore, the question of registration The CBI’s abbreviated status report indicts certain persons, but me has been filed only for consideration of this Court and not for consideration of the police/competent investigative authority. where a person alleges offence(s) which e first step to be taken u/s 173 of BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 154 Cr.P.C.) or any other equivalent provision in the penal enactment, is to inform the police/competent investigative authority about ission of cognizable offence(s), orally or in writing. e present case is that the petitioners had not investigative authority and this matter is hanging fire for the last more than 14 years. This Court, on the last occasion, was allegedly ly influential families at the cost of the Government whom said In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, this petition was ed above, gives an impression that an FIR has been lodged and the petitioners are asking for handing over hereas the nce the to the authority, therefore, the question of registration persons, but on of this Court and not for which f BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 154 Cr.P.C.) or any other equivalent provision in the penal authority about e present case is that the petitioners had not authority and this matter is This Court, on the last occasion, NAROTAM DASS 2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) i.e. 27.03.2026, had expressed its concern in this reg for today. 10. argue the matter, which i 11. the police/competent information/complaint as regards commission of cognizable offence(s) of approach years and wasting the valuable time o utilized in deciding more pressing matters. 12. be relegated to avail the remedy of giving first information/complaint of commission of cognizable offen investigative 13. competent jurisdictional investigating agency by giving first information/ complaint, which shall be dealt with by the concern accordance with law and after following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in 14. investigative to a period of purpose of finding out as to whether the allegations contained in the first information/complaint reveal commissi without going i 2011 ( O&M ) i.e. 27.03.2026, had expressed its concern in this reg Today, learned counsel for the petitioners yet again seeks time to argue the matter, which is, to say the least, If the petitioners were aggrieved, they should the police/competent investigative information/complaint as regards commission of cognizable offence(s) approaching this Court and keeping this and wasting the valuable time of this Court, which could have been utilized in deciding more pressing matters. We are, thus, of the considered view that the petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the remedy of giving first information/complaint of commission of cognizable offence(s) to the compet investigative agency. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent jurisdictional investigating agency by giving first information/ complaint, which shall be dealt with by the concern accordance with law and after following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1 We may clarify that even if the compet investigative agency conducts a preliminary enquiry, same should be limited to a period of fourteen (14) days and this preliminary enquiry purpose of finding out as to whether the allegations contained in the first information/complaint reveal commission of cognizable offence(s) or not, without going into veracity of the allegations, unless the allegation -4- i.e. 27.03.2026, had expressed its concern in this regard and listed the matter Today, learned counsel for the petitioners yet again seeks time to s, to say the least, unfortunate. aggrieved, they should have approach authority by submitting information/complaint as regards commission of cognizable offence(s), instead is matter pending for more than f this Court, which could have been We are, thus, of the considered view that the petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the remedy of giving first information/complaint of ce(s) to the competent jurisdictional Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent jurisdictional investigating agency by giving first information/ complaint, which shall be dealt with by the concerned investigating agency in accordance with law and after following the principles of law laid down by the Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1 We may clarify that even if the competent jurisdictional agency conducts a preliminary enquiry, same should be limited this preliminary enquiry should be for the purpose of finding out as to whether the allegations contained in the first on of cognizable offence(s) or not, nto veracity of the allegations, unless the allegations in the first ard and listed the matter Today, learned counsel for the petitioners yet again seeks time to approached first instead more than 14 f this Court, which could have been We are, thus, of the considered view that the petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the remedy of giving first information/complaint of ent jurisdictional Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent jurisdictional investigating agency by giving first information/ ed investigating agency in accordance with law and after following the principles of law laid down by the Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1. ent jurisdictional agency conducts a preliminary enquiry, same should be limited should be for the purpose of finding out as to whether the allegations contained in the first on of cognizable offence(s) or not, in the first NAROTAM DASS 2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21960-2011 ( O&M ) information allege offences which attract maximum punishment of three years but less than seven years. information/complaint attract punishment of seven or more years, then the competent jurisdictional investigative agency has no option but to register an FIR of the cognizable offence alleged in the first information/complaint, without ent information 15. facility, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, which if made within a period of thirty (30) days shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order and by taking appropriate application would be communicated to the petitioners within a further period of thirty (30) days. 16. April 09, 2026 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2011 ( O&M ) information allege offences which attract maximum punishment of three years but less than seven years. However, if the allegations conta information/complaint attract punishment of seven or more years, then the competent jurisdictional investigative agency has no option but to register an FIR of the cognizable offence alleged in the first information/complaint, without entering into veracity of the allegations in the first information/complaint. With regard to prayer of shifting of facility, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, which if made within a period of thirty (30) days shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order and by king appropriate remedial steps, if required in application would be communicated to the petitioners within a further period of thirty (30) days. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. April 09, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- information allege offences which attract maximum punishment of three years However, if the allegations contained in the first information/complaint attract punishment of seven or more years, then the competent jurisdictional investigative agency has no option but to register an FIR of the cognizable offence alleged in the first information/complaint, ering into veracity of the allegations in the first With regard to prayer of shifting of Municipal Waste land Fill facility, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, which if made within a period of thirty (30) days shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order and by required in law. The outcome of such application would be communicated to the petitioners within a further period Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No information allege offences which attract maximum punishment of three years ined in the first information/complaint attract punishment of seven or more years, then the competent jurisdictional investigative agency has no option but to register an FIR of the cognizable offence alleged in the first information/complaint, ering into veracity of the allegations in the first Municipal Waste land Fill facility, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, which if made within a period of thirty (30) days shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order and by The outcome of such application would be communicated to the petitioners within a further period NAROTAM DASS 2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment