CRM-M-37883-2026 (O&M) 1- 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37883-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 SUKHJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER …PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Ajaypal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Daljeet Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. 1. The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks a direction to official respondents No.2 and 3 to take appropriate legal action on representation dated 04.05.2026 and for registration of case against private respondents No.5 to 11 for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy etc. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners were owner in possession of agricultural land by virtue of Civil Court Decree dated 30.08.2004. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree was dismissed on 16.11.2011. However, on 19.02.2026, another round of civil litigation was initiated by Jagir Singh which was dismissed by this Court as infructuous. Despite judicial verdict in favour of petitioners, respondents No.5 to 11, in connivance with each other, created forged documents with intent to grab petitioner’s land. Four illegal and fraudulent sale deeds were SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37883-2026 (O&M) -2- executed by respondents No.4 to 10 in favour of respondents No.6, 7 and 8 in the year 2023, 2024 and 2026. Representation was made to official respondents No.2 and 3 for registration of FIR but no action was taken thereon. 3. Notice of motion to official respondents. 4. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents and submits that representation filed by the petitioners was marked to DSP and report was prepared by DSP, City Gurdaspur who recommended consignment of the same on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature. 5. 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 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. 6. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37883-2026 (O&M) -3- “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. 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.” 7. Similar were observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341. 8. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not warranted. 9. The petition stands disposed of. SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37883-2026 (O&M) -4- 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document