CRM-M-33670-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33670-2026 Date of decision: 12.06.2026 Satpal Singh and another ...Pe""oners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the pe""oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe""on filed under Sec"on 528 of the Bhara"ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe""oners seek issuance of direc"ons to respondent No.2 to take appropriate legal ac"on on their representa"on dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) and to register a criminal case against private respondents No.4 to 7 and other unknown persons. 2. Learned counsel for the pe""oners submits that a dispute re- garding agricultural land is pending between the par"es and an injunc"on order has already been passed by the competent Civil Court in favour of the pe""oners. It is contended that despite the subsistence of the said order, the private respondents forcibly entered upon the disputed land and viol- ated the injunc"on granted by the Civil Court. Learned counsel submits that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC have already been ini"ated by the pe""oners before the Civil Court for alleged viola"on of the injunc"on order. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33670-2026 [2] 3. It is further submi<ed that on 09.03.2026, taking advantage of the absence of the husband of pe""oner No.1, respondents No.4 to 9 along with certain uniden"fied persons allegedly came to the residence of the pe- ""oners armed with weapons, created terror in the locality and started pel"ng stones at their house. Complaints in this regard were allegedly sub- mi<ed to the In-charge, Police Post Mandi Ladhu Ka, but no ac"on was taken. Therea@er, representa"on dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) was submi<ed to respondent No.2 seeking registra"on of an FIR against the al- leged culprits. Since no ac"on has been taken thereon, the present pe""on has been filed. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uar Pradesh and others, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 979. 4. Upon a specific query put by the Court, learned counsel for the pe""oners fairly concedes that neither any applica"on has been moved be- fore the jurisdic"onal Magistrate seeking appropriate direc"ons nor has any criminal complaint been filed before the competent Court "ll date. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the pe""oners and perused the paper-book. 6. The principal relief sought in the present pe""on is a direc"on for registra"on of an FIR and ini"a"on of criminal proceedings against the private respondents. However, the law on the subject is no longer res in- tegra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and oth- ers, (2008) 2 SCC 409, has categorically held that where a person is ag- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33670-2026 [3] grieved by non-registra"on of an FIR, the Code itself provides an efficacious and complete mechanism for redressal of such grievance. The first remedy is to approach the superior police authori"es and, if the grievance s"ll per- sists, the aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdic"on of the Magistrate em- powered to act in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has fur- ther observed that a person can also ins"tute a private complaint before the competent Magistrate and, therefore, ordinarily should not directly in- voke the extraordinary jurisdic"on of the High Court seeking a direc"on for registra"on of an FIR. 7. The ra"onale behind the aforesaid principle is that the Magis- trate is vested with adequate powers to examine the allega"ons, call for a report, direct inves"ga"on wherever warranted and take cognizance of the offence in accordance with law. Consequently, where such statutory rem- edies are available and have not been exhausted, this Court would ordinar- ily decline to entertain a pe""on seeking direct interven"on. 8. In the present case, admi<edly, the pe""oners have not availed the remedy before the jurisdic"onal Magistrate. The mere fact that representa"ons were submi<ed to the police authori"es would not jus"fy bypassing the statutory mechanism specifically provided under the criminal law. The existence of a pending civil dispute between the par"es and the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC further indicate that certain aspects of the controversy are already engaging the a<en"on of the com- petent Civil Court. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33670-2026 [4] 9. It is also se<led that the judgment in Lalita Kumari (supra) does not dilute the principle laid down in Sakiri Vasu (supra) regarding the avail- ability of alterna"ve statutory remedies. The appropriate course for an ag- grieved person, in a case where the police fail to act on the complaint, is to approach the Magistrate in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 10. In view of the aforesaid legal posi"on and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allega"ons levelled by the pe""oners, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdic"on under Sec"on 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. Consequently, the present pe""on is disposed of with liberty to the pe""oners to avail the alterna"ve remedies available to them under law before the competent Magistrate, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others (supra). 12. It is clarified that if such remedy is availed, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent Court strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observa"on made herein. 12.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document