109 CRM-M-51129-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51129-2025 Date of decision: 12.09.2025 SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANR. ….Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..… RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register an FIR against respondents No.4 to 8 and another accused as per complaint dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner No.1 has four daughters and one son namely Jasbir Singh (respondent No.8 herein) and petitioner No.2 is son-in-law of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 06.08.2025 respondent No.8 started beating petitioner No.1 and his wife. Petitioner No.1 in order to save his life called his daughter and his son-in-law. In the meanwhile, respondent No.8 called respondents No.4 to 7 and another unknown person to attack the petitioners. All the private respondents along with another unknown person attacked petitioners with deadly arms and damaged the right wrist of petitioner No.1 and also attacked upon the forehead of petitioner No.1 with an Puneet Sharma 2025.09.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 109 CRM-M-51129-2025 -2- intention to kill him. The respondents also gave beatings to petitioner No.2 mercilessly and gave blows on his chest, pulled his hair and removed his turban. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in order to deprive the petitioners of medical help the private respondents confined the petitioners. He submits that as a result petitioner No.1 was admitted in emergency and has placed on record the copy of MLR dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) 4. It is thus prayed to issue an appropriate direction to the official respondents to fairly investigate the matter and register an FIR against respondents No.4 to 8 and another accused. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that the Magistrate has been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Discouraging the practice of approaching the High Court for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper investigation, Justice Markandey Katju made the following observations: “27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper Puneet Sharma 2025.09.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 109 CRM-M-51129-2025 -3- investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” 7. This ratio was reiterated in the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhange and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728. 8. The High Courts, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023), can issue directions for prompt and proper investigation, however, it would be out of bounds to instruct the investigation to be completed in a certain time frame, in alignment with the opinion expressed by it. The Courts must be conscious of its influence and not exercise the same in an unwarranted fashion as it may prejudice the conclusion of the investigating agency, straying further away from achieving the overarching goal of justice. 9. Further, even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped to deal with such type of matters, learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this Court directly instead of the concerned jurisdictional Court by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023). Puneet Sharma 2025.09.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 109 CRM-M-51129-2025 -4- 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to issue any such direction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 12.09.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.09.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment