CRM-M-30280-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 148 CRM-M-30280-2025 DECIDED ON:28.05.2025 CHAMAN LAL BANSAL ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for issuance of direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib to take legal action against respondents No.4 and 5, Satnam Singh Virk, DSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib & Sukhjinder Singh, Reader to DSP, for threatening, humiliating & defaming the petitioner and his son as well as for misusing their powers to protect respondents No.6 to 8. Further direction has also been sought to initiate disciplinary action against respondents No.4 and 5 and also to procure the call details, SMS, Voice Calls, WhatsApp Calls, WhatsApp Messages & location of respondents No.4 to 9 w.e.f. 12.06.2024 to 30.12.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had submitted an application to respondent No. 3 – Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib, requesting that an inquiry be conducted by a higher SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30280-2025 -2- officer. This application was marked to SP (D), following which FIR No. 185 dated 13.10.2024 under Sections 420, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC was registered at Police Station City, Sri Muktsar Sahib, against respondents No. 6 to 8 (Annexure P-1). 3. It is further submitted that despite the registration of the aforesaid FIR, no action has been taken against respondents No. 7 and 8, as they are being shielded from arrest due to the alleged interference by respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction, submitted a representation dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) to the Bureau of Investigation (B.O.I.), seeking transfer of the investigation from Sri Muktsar Sahib to the B.O.I. for a fair and impartial probe. This representation was again marked to respondent No. 3, who further directed it to respondents No. 4 and 5. 4. It is alleged that respondents No. 4 and 5 thereafter summoned the petitioner and his son to their office and threatened them for approaching the B.O.I. The petitioner has come to know from reliable sources that respondents No. 4 and 5 (Satnam Singh Virk, DSP, and Sukhjinder Singh) have accepted a ₹ bribe of 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from a person named Surinder Singh, who is acting as a tout. It is further contended that the petitioner possesses an audio recording in which Sikander Singh admits to paying ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to a police officer. 5. Counsel also submits that DSP Satnam Singh and his reader are habitual in accepting bribes and possess assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. The name of DSP Satnam Singh has also allegedly figured in various news reports and on social media in connection with illegal activities. The petitioner has submitted another representation dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), followed by yet another dated 05.05.2025 SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30280-2025 -3- (Annexure P-6), addressed to respondent No. 2, praying for appropriate action against respondents No. 4 to 9. 6. It is further argued that during the inquiry, the statement of Navjot Singh, Halka Patwari, was recorded, in which it was confirmed that Beant Singh alias Sikander Singh (respondent No. 6) is the owner of land measuring 12 Kanals 09 Marlas in Khewat No. 1043, Khatouni Nos. 1596 and 1597. The land was shown as mortgaged in favour of Gurpreet Singh son of Malkit Singh, vide mutation No. 40964, which was registered in the jamabandi on 08.06.2023, two days after the execution of the agreement to sell/exchange dated 06.06.2023 between the petitioner and respondent No. 6. 7. However, it has also come on record that the said land was already mortgaged to Gurpreet Singh on 17.05.2022, i.e., much before the execution of the agreement dated 06.06.2023. This material fact of mortgage was never disclosed to the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement. The non- disclosure of this crucial fact clearly establishes that respondents No. 6 to 8 had the dishonest intention to cheat the petitioner right from the beginning. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the matter at this stage. After perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted at this stage. It is not in dispute that FIR No. 185 dated 13.10.2024 under Sections 420, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC stands registered at Police Station City, Sri Muktsar Sahib against the private respondents. The petitioner, however, appears to be in the habit of submitting repeated applications and representations to various authorities seeking intervention in the matter. Once an FIR has been registered, the investigation has to follow its own course in accordance with law, and this Court cannot SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30280-2025 -4- exercise its jurisdiction to supervise or interfere in the same merely on the basis of generalized allegations. 9. If the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the conduct of the investigation or the role of any official respondents, he is at liberty to approach the competent authority or invoke the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein it was held that if a person is aggrieved by inaction or improper investigation by the police, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023) rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available to him under the law before the appropriate forum. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 28.05.2025 JUDGE sham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document