CRWP-7102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 114 Mandeep Singh and others State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Constitution of India, seeking issuance of direction protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners, which are under imminent threat from the private respondent Nos. issuing threats of physical harm to the petitioners and their family members and coercing petitioner No.1 to withdraw a complaint submitted to the higher authorities. Further prayer has been made to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and moved by the petitioners and the complaint dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P 2) in accordance with law at the earliest. 2. petitioner including the right to live peacefully petitioners are facing a grave and imminent threat to their life, liberty and property at the hands of private respondent Nos 7102-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mandeep Singh and others V/s State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the petitioner (Through Video Conference). ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Constitution of India, seeking issuance of direction protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners, which are under imminent threat from the private respondent Nos. issuing threats of physical harm to the petitioners and their family members coercing petitioner No.1 to withdraw a complaint submitted to the higher authorities. Further prayer has been made to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P moved by the petitioners and the complaint dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P 2) in accordance with law at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioner s are entitled to protection under the Constitution of India, including the right to live peacefully. According to learned counsel, the petitioners are facing a grave and imminent threat to their life, liberty and property at the hands of private respondent Nos 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-7102-2025 Date of decision:07.07.202 ....Petitioners ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioners (Through Video Conference). ***** petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners, which are under imminent threat from the private respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are allegedly issuing threats of physical harm to the petitioners and their family members coercing petitioner No.1 to withdraw a complaint submitted to the higher authorities. Further prayer has been made to respondent Nos.2 and 3 decide the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P moved by the petitioners and the complaint dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the entitled to protection under the Constitution of India, . According to learned counsel, the petitioners are facing a grave and imminent threat to their life, liberty and property at the hands of private respondent Nos.4 to 7. It is further iterated .2025 226 of the respondent No.2 to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners, which are under who are allegedly issuing threats of physical harm to the petitioners and their family members coercing petitioner No.1 to withdraw a complaint submitted to the higher authorities. Further prayer has been made to respondent Nos.2 and 3 decide the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) moved by the petitioners and the complaint dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P- has iterated that the entitled to protection under the Constitution of India, . According to learned counsel, the petitioners are facing a grave and imminent threat to their life, liberty and .4 to 7. It is further iterated AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7102 that after the demarcation proceedings were conducted, the private respondents alongwith 20 with the clear intent to eliminate the petitioners incident which occurred on 04.06.2025, no action has been taken by the Police even after a written complaint was promptly submitted by the petitioners. The inaction of the local police Article 21 of the Constitution, which guar liberty. The petitioner due to continuous harassment and open threats at the hands of private respondent(s). Furthermore, the petitioner statutory remedy available and is therefore, constrained to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking protection of his fundamental rights. 3. perused the paper 4. the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. The prime prayer made in the petition is that allegedly acting in collusion with interfering in the life of the petitioner well being. respondent(s) h inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article India without even referring to any material which substantiate the averments so advanced. As regards protection of life a 7102-2025 that after the demarcation proceedings were conducted, the private respondents alongwith 20-25 unidentified armed individuals opened fire with the clear intent to eliminate the petitioners dent which occurred on 04.06.2025, no action has been taken by the Police even after a written complaint was promptly submitted by the petitioners. The inaction of the local police Article 21 of the Constitution, which guar liberty. The petitioners are facing a real and imminent threat to due to continuous harassment and open threats at the hands of private respondent(s). Furthermore, the petitioner statutory remedy available and is therefore, constrained to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking protection of his fundamental rights. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner perused the paper-book. The present petition has been preferred under the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this The prime prayer made in the petition is that allegedly acting in collusion with the private interfering in the life of the petitioners further endangering well being. The petitioners (herein) who claims that the respondent(s) have extended threats to inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article India without even referring to any material which substantiate the averments so advanced. As regards protection of life a 2 that after the demarcation proceedings were conducted, the private 25 unidentified armed individuals opened fire with the clear intent to eliminate the petitioners. Despite the life threatening dent which occurred on 04.06.2025, no action has been taken by the Police even after a written complaint was promptly submitted by the petitioners. The inaction of the local police, amount to a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal facing a real and imminent threat to their safety due to continuous harassment and open threats at the hands of private respondent(s). Furthermore, the petitioners has no other effective, speedy or statutory remedy available and is therefore, constrained to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking protection of his I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this The prime prayer made in the petition is that the local police, the private respondents, are unlawfully further endangering their liberty and (herein) who claims that the private ave extended threats to them, have chosen to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India without even referring to any material which substantiate the averments so advanced. As regards protection of life and liberty of the that after the demarcation proceedings were conducted, the private 25 unidentified armed individuals opened fire . Despite the life threatening dent which occurred on 04.06.2025, no action has been taken by the Police even after a written complaint was promptly submitted by the , amount to a clear violation of antees the right to life and personal safety due to continuous harassment and open threats at the hands of private speedy or statutory remedy available and is therefore, constrained to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking protection of his and have 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this the local police, , are unlawfully liberty and private chosen to invoke the of the Constitution of India without even referring to any material which substantiate the nd liberty of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7102 petitioner forward by the petitioner under Article said apprehensi assertion. Mere bald and unsubstantiated averments, devoid of cogent material, do not confer upon the petitioner extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this jurisdiction must be predicated upon demonstrable facts and credible material that prima facie establish a legal right & its infringement. Absent such foundational substance, the petition is rendered speculative. The writ Court, being of vague, hollow assertions bereft of probative value. 5. (Annexure P of Police, Patiala concerned authority. In case the pe of any offence against approaching the comp would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-34678 decided on 31.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under: 7102-2025 s, no such accentuating facts/circumstances have been brought forward by the petitioners which may warrant interference by this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, indubitable that said apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner assertion. Mere bald and unsubstantiated averments, devoid of cogent material, do not confer upon the petitioner extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this jurisdiction must be predicated upon demonstrable facts and credible material that prima facie establish a legal right & its infringement. Absent such foundational substance, the petition is rendered speculative. The writ ourt, being a Court of equity & discretion, is not to be moved on the basis of vague, hollow assertions bereft of probative value. The petitioners have averred to have moved a representation (Annexure P-3) and complaint (Annexure P of Police, Patiala, whereof no action alleged to have been taken by the erned authority. In case the petitioner of any offence against them, the same can be efficaciously redressed by approaching the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in 34678-2024 titled as AXXXX vs. decided on 31.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under: “11. As a sequel to above rumination, the following postulates of law emerge: I. An Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate has; by virtue of Sections 173 and 175 of BNSS, 2023; the necessary powers and jurisdiction to grant plea(s) for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of 3 , no such accentuating facts/circumstances have been brought which may warrant interference by this Court 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, indubitable that on expressed on behalf of the petitioners is nothing but a bald assertion. Mere bald and unsubstantiated averments, devoid of cogent material, do not confer upon the petitioners an entitlement to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The invocation of writ jurisdiction must be predicated upon demonstrable facts and credible material that prima facie establish a legal right & its infringement. Absent such foundational substance, the petition is rendered speculative. The writ ourt of equity & discretion, is not to be moved on the basis of vague, hollow assertions bereft of probative value. averred to have moved a representation (Annexure P-2) to the Senior Superintendent , whereof no action alleged to have been taken by the titioners are aggrieved by the commission the same can be efficaciously redressed by agistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in AXXXX vs. vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- As a sequel to above rumination, the following postulates of law An Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate has; by virtue of Sections 173 and 175 of BNSS, 2023; the necessary powers and jurisdiction to grant for registration of an FIR, monitoring of , no such accentuating facts/circumstances have been brought which may warrant interference by this Court 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, indubitable that is nothing but a bald assertion. Mere bald and unsubstantiated averments, devoid of cogent an entitlement to invoke the e invocation of writ jurisdiction must be predicated upon demonstrable facts and credible material that prima facie establish a legal right & its infringement. Absent such foundational substance, the petition is rendered speculative. The writ ourt of equity & discretion, is not to be moved on the basis averred to have moved a representation Superintendent , whereof no action alleged to have been taken by the commission the same can be efficaciously redressed by agistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in vs. State of Punjab and others, As a sequel to above rumination, the following postulates of law An Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate has; by virtue of Sections 173 and 175 of BNSS, 2023; the necessary powers and jurisdiction to grant for registration of an FIR, monitoring of AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7102 5.1. that the extraordinary jurisdiction und casually invoked, nor is it to be treated as an alternative forum to bypass established legal channels. The writ jurisdiction, though wide & potent in its sweep, is prudence. Where a statutory mechanism is available, which is not only efficacious but also adequate in addressing the alleged grievance, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, must exhibit judicial restraint. The writ Court is not t 7102-2025 investigation in an FIR, change of investigating officer and prayer(s) of alike nature. II. Ordinarily, an applicant/complainant ought to approach, in the first instance, the Court of Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magist issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR as also other prayers of akin nature. III. In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such kind and nature. However, it wo applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate in the first instance. IV. A High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. The only restriction on exercise of such powers is self-restraint. No inflexible and c guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by a High Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case.” It is a well-entrenched tenet of the constitutional jurisprudence that the extraordinary jurisdiction under casually invoked, nor is it to be treated as an alternative forum to bypass established legal channels. The writ jurisdiction, though wide & potent in its sweep, is circumscribed by certain self prudence. Where a statutory mechanism is available, which is not only efficacious but also adequate in addressing the alleged grievance, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, must exhibit judicial restraint. The ourt is not to be converted into a 4 investigation in an FIR, change of investigating officer and prayer(s) of alike Ordinarily, an applicant/complainant ought to approach, in the first instance, the Court of Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek prayer(s) for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR as also other prayers of akin nature. In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High sdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such kind and nature. However, it would be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the sdictional Magistrate in the first instance. A High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. The only restriction on restraint. No inflexible and comprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of powers by Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by a High Court in the facts and circumstances of a entrenched tenet of the constitutional jurisprudence er Articles 226 is not to be lightly or casually invoked, nor is it to be treated as an alternative forum to bypass established legal channels. The writ jurisdiction, though wide & potent in its circumscribed by certain self-imposed limitations rooted in prudence. Where a statutory mechanism is available, which is not only efficacious but also adequate in addressing the alleged grievance, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, must exhibit judicial restraint. The o be converted into a Court of first instance for investigation in an FIR, change of investigating officer and prayer(s) of alike Ordinarily, an applicant/complainant ought to approach, in the first rate to seek prayer(s) for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High sdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such uld be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the A High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. The only restriction on omprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic powers by a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of powers by Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by a High Court in the facts and circumstances of a entrenched tenet of the constitutional jurisprudence is not to be lightly or casually invoked, nor is it to be treated as an alternative forum to bypass established legal channels. The writ jurisdiction, though wide & potent in its ooted in prudence. Where a statutory mechanism is available, which is not only efficacious but also adequate in addressing the alleged grievance, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, must exhibit judicial restraint. The ourt of first instance for AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7102 adjudication of disputes for which an efficacious statutory framework exist. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the dicta passed by a constitutional bench of India vs. T.R. Verma, reads thus: remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the e court to issue a writ: but, as observed by this court in Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566, legal remedy isa thing to be taken into c writs” Commission, (1954 S.C.R. 738, 747. sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under unless there are good grounds therefore.” observes in matters where an alternative remedy is available, acquires profound relevance & weight when such alternative remedy partakes judicial character. In such instances, the jurisdiction of this exercised with circumspection, discipline. To entertain a matter in the absence of the exhaustion of an equally efficacious & jurisdictional exercise of writ jurisdiction but would also constitute salutary principle of subsidiarity that undergirds the sta neither consistent with the hierarchy of remedies nor constant with the orderly administration of justice for this court to interlude prematurely, 7102-2025 adjudication of disputes for which an efficacious statutory framework exist. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the dicta passed by a constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in t India vs. T.R. Verma, 1957 AIR Supreme Court 88 reads thus: “…….. It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ: but, as observed by this court in Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566, legal remedy isa thing to be taken into c writs”. Vide also K.S. Rashid & Son v. The Income Commission, (1954 S.C.R. 738, 747. And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under unless there are good grounds therefore.” The principle of self-restraint, which this observes in matters where an alternative remedy is available, acquires profound relevance & weight when such alternative remedy partakes judicial character. In such instances, the jurisdiction of this exercised with circumspection, lest it transgress the bounds of judicial discipline. To entertain a matter in the absence of the exhaustion of an equally efficacious & statutorily prescribed remedy before competent jurisdictional Magistrate would not only amount to an impropriety in the exercise of writ jurisdiction but would also constitute salutary principle of subsidiarity that undergirds the sta neither consistent with the hierarchy of remedies nor constant with the orderly administration of justice for this court to interlude prematurely, 5 adjudication of disputes for which an efficacious statutory framework exist. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the dicta passed by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of 1957 AIR Supreme Court 882, relevant whereof settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is xistence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ: but, as observed by this court in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566, “the existence of an adequate legal remedy isa thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting K.S. Rashid & Son v. The Income-tax Investigation And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there are good grounds therefore.” restraint, which this Court ordinarily observes in matters where an alternative remedy is available, acquires profound relevance & weight when such alternative remedy partakes judicial character. In such instances, the jurisdiction of this Court ought to be it transgress the bounds of judicial discipline. To entertain a matter in the absence of the exhaustion of an statutorily prescribed remedy before competent agistrate would not only amount to an impropriety in the exercise of writ jurisdiction but would also constitute a departure from the salutary principle of subsidiarity that undergirds the statutory scheme. It is neither consistent with the hierarchy of remedies nor constant with the orderly administration of justice for this court to interlude prematurely, adjudication of disputes for which an efficacious statutory framework exist. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the dicta passed by a Union of relevant whereof settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is xistence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Rashid Ahmed v. “the existence of an adequate onsideration in the matter of granting tax Investigation And where such remedy exists, it will be a Article 226, ourt ordinarily observes in matters where an alternative remedy is available, acquires profound relevance & weight when such alternative remedy partakes a ourt ought to be it transgress the bounds of judicial discipline. To entertain a matter in the absence of the exhaustion of an statutorily prescribed remedy before competent agistrate would not only amount to an impropriety in the a departure from the tutory scheme. It is neither consistent with the hierarchy of remedies nor constant with the orderly administration of justice for this court to interlude prematurely, AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7102 thereby rendering the legislative architecture otiose and undermining the forum expressl 6. for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article India. Ergo, (i) (ii) alternative remedy(s), as per law. Needless to say that this Court has not delved into the merits of the appropriate proceedings, in case occasion so arises. (iii) July 07, 202 Ajay 7102-2025 thereby rendering the legislative architecture otiose and undermining the forum expressly designated for such redres Accordingly, this Court does not find the present case a fit one for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article Ergo, it is directed as under: The petition in hand stands dismissed. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail alternative remedy(s), as per law. Needless to say that this Court has not delved into the merits of the lis and the same is left open to be adjudicate appropriate proceedings, in case occasion so arises. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 6 thereby rendering the legislative architecture otiose and undermining the y designated for such redressal. Accordingly, this Court does not find the present case a fit one for exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of The petition in hand stands dismissed. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail alternative remedy(s), as per law. Needless to say that this Court has not and the same is left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings, in case occasion so arises. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No thereby rendering the legislative architecture otiose and undermining the Accordingly, this Court does not find the present case a fit one of the Constitution of Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail alternative remedy(s), as per law. Needless to say that this Court has not d in AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document