129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37912-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 SALAMO …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral) 1. The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks following reliefs: (i) direction to official respondents No. 2 and 3 to take action against respondents No. 4 and 5 for not registering FIR against respondents No. 6 and 7; (ii) direction to respondents No. 2 to 5 to register FIR against respondents No. 6 and 7; (iii) directions to respondents No. 2 to 5 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of respondents No. 6 and 7; (iii) direction to respondents No. 2 to 5 to consider and decide representation dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.06.2026, petitioner, who was a labourer, was working on JCB Machine on land of Narender Bhalla in village Bansghati, Pinjore, District Panchkula. Respondent No. 7, Gagan son of Avtar Singh visited the spot, abused and threatened the petitioner, attacked him with stones AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.16 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37912-2026 (O&M) -2- and damaged the JCB machine. Petitioner suffered injuries and was medico-legally examined. Respondent No. 6 was a police official in Haryana police. A representation was moved to Director General of Police, Haryana, Police Headquarters, Sector-6, Panchkula, to take action against the private respondents but to no avail. 3. Notice of motion to official respondents only. 4. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents and on instructions from HC Baru Singh submits that petitioner’s representation was received by the police, inquiry was conducted by calling the parties to police staton. Their statements were recorded. As no cognizable offence was made out, preventive action was taken. 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 AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.16 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37912-2026 (O&M) -3- 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:- “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 AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.16 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37912-2026 (O&M) -4- 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. Petitioner’s representation to the official respondents stands determined. There is no medical report of the petitioner on record. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) BNSS), is wide enough and empowers a Magistrate to pass orders for registration of FIR, such other orders as may be necessary for monitoring investigation and for ensuring proper investigation. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary remedy under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not warranted for directing registration of FIR. On the prayer of protection of life and liberty, prevention action has been taken and no further directions are warranted. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, if he so desires. 10. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.16 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document