129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40450-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 SUKHWINDER SINGH @ SUKKHA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Mehar Bhagnagar, Advocate for the petitioner. (through video conferencing) Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral) 1. The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks following reliefs: (i) Direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action against respondents No. 4 to 6 for cheating, criminal breach of trust, theft, assault, destruction of evidence and criminal intimidation; and/or (ii) Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide representation dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure P-1); and/or (iii) direction to official respondents to protect life and liberty of the petitioner from private respondents No. 4 to 6; 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in consensual relationship with respondent No. 4 since September 2024 and had been in constant touch with her. He had also been giving her money. However, respondent No. 4 abruptly refused for engagement and marriage with the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 5, her father, who was an ASI in Punjab Police. She further submits that AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40450-2026 (O&M) -2- petitioner tried to resolve the matter amicably by convening a Panchayat but respondent No. 5 snatched his phone, deleted all whatsapp chats, call detail records, photographs and videos and thereafter, the phone was returned. Petitioner was facing repeated threats and warning. A representation dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) was moved to respondent No.3, in this regard, but no action was taken on the same. 3. Notice of motion to official respondents only. 4. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and submits that no representation of the petitioner was received by the official respondents. 5. In Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No.2325 of 2026, date of decision 04.05.2026, the Apex Court while referring to its previous decisions in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine 2510, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, observed as under:- “7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. 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 conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40450-2026 (O&M) -3- 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS') (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC')) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in- charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. 6. Thus, no directions can be given to the police to register FIR. Petitioner may avail alternative remedy, if he so desires. 7. With regard to the protection of petitioner’s life and liberty, the petition does not disclose any specifics of time, date or place where the alleged threats were extended. Considering the facts alleged in the petition, it does not appear to be case of threat to life and liberty but a case of broken relationship, in which the Court refuses to intervene. 8. Petition stands disposed of. 9. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 28.07.2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document