CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) 1- 245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 SUSHILA …PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. Jai Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. CRM-48492-2023 Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for placing on record application moved to Tehsildar, Israna, Panipat as Annexure P3. Application is allowed and Annexure P3 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) 1. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks a direction to official respondents to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Prevention SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) -2- of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code committed by private respondents on petitioner’s complaint dated 26.07.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made a complaint dated 26.07.2023 against private respondents No.4 to 6 i.e. Naveen Patwari, his wife Mohini and District Revenue Officer Raj Kumar Bhauriya, Panipat for demanding bribe of Rs.3,00,000/- and accepting bribe of Rs.1,75,000/- for discharging their official duties i.e. transfer of land in favour of the petitioner in Village Gwalda but no action was taken. Petitioner was possessed of concrete evidence to prove complicity of respondents No.4 to 6. Prayer is to direct official respondents to register FIR under appropriate Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, as per law. 3. Status report by way of affidavit of Virender Singh, HPS, DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karnal Range, Karnal has been filed by State of Haryana, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel submits that an inquiry was conducted into the matter but the allegations against private respondents No.4 to 6 regarding demand and taking of bribe for transfer of land were found baseless. Accordingly, it was recommended to file the complaint. Final report was sent to Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula by Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karnal. After examining the inquiry report, Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana Panchkula also approved it. 4. In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) -3- “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. 5. 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 SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) -4- 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.” 6. Similar were observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341. 7. 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:- SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51654-2023 (O&M) -5- “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. 8. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Petitioner may avail the remedy available to her, as per law. 9. The petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document