CRM-M-36153-2026 (O&M) 1- 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36153-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 RIYA MITTAL …PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. 1. The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Direction to official respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against private respondents on representation dated 26.05.2026 and conduct fair and proper investigation. (ii) Direction to official respondent No.2 to submit status report with regard to petitioner’s representation dated 26.05.2026. (iii) Direction to official respondents to protect life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the private respondents; 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was employed with M/s Access Infotech from 15.02.2022 to 03.07.2025 and was relieved from service after serving mandatory notice. After leaving the job, she requested for experience certificate through her official e-mail and the SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.07 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36153-2026 (O&M) -2- Company issued an experience certificate and relieving letter. During process of verification by her prospective employer, respondents No.4 and 5 falsely declared the experience certificate issued as fake and fabricated, thus, maliciously damaging professional reputation and career prospects of the petitioner. On that account, petitioner suffered mental harassment, humiliation and loss of employment opportunities. The police was approached but no action was taken. During inquiry proceedings, respondents No.4 and 5 extended threats and intimidated the petitioner by claiming political and administrative influence. Detailed representation was made to SSP, SAS Nagar Mohali on 26.05.2026 seeking legal action against private respondents, yet, no action was taken. 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Iqbal Mohammad submits that petitioner’s representation was received by the police on 13.05.2026. The representatives of previous employer of the petitioner, M/s Access Infotech were summoned who claimed that the experience certificate was genuine and not fake; further that they were willing to issue another experience certificate. Petitioner was asked to join the inquiry proceedings but she did not do so, being away to Hyderabad in connection with her job prospects, whereupon, representation was consigned as no cognizable offence was made out. 4. In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “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 SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.07 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36153-2026 (O&M) -3- 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, 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 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. SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.07 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36153-2026 (O&M) -4- 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. In view of the above pronouncements, no direction for registration of FIR can be passed. If petitioner is aggrieved with the act of official respondents, she is at liberty to avail appropriate alternative remedy in accordance with law. Petitioner’s representation regarding threat to her life and liberty at the hands of private respondents would however be considered and decided in accordance with law, within one month from today. Appropriate action be taken, in case threat is perceived. 7. The petition stands disposed of, on the terms above. 8. All the miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 07.07.2026 Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.07 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document