The court emphasized that a litigant must approach the jurisdictional magistrate for FIR registration, and the local police is competent to investigate, dismissing the petition for lack of compelling evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The petition in hand has been filed by the petitioners (who also appeared/argued in person) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance of direction(s) for registration of an FIR against one Inspector Rupinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Phase-8, Mohali and other accused named in the complaint dated 10.03.2024 (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with the instant petition) and subsequent representation dated 22.03.2024 (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the instant petition); for transfer of consequential investigation of the FIR so registered to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CBI’); to compensation to the victims (including the petitioners herein) & for further direction to the official respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners (herein) in pursuance of any counter case registered by the Punjab Police without the leave of this Court and/or with an advance notice, of atleast, fifteen days in writing to the petitioners.

2. The gravamen of the complaint in question (Annexure P-1);which was submitted by the complainant (petitioner No.1 herein) to Director General of Police, Punjab Police Headquarters, Chandigarh; is that on the day of occurrence, at about 12:40 P.M., he went to the bathroom to take a bath. Suddenly, he heard noises and the door of his bathroom was forcibly kicked open thus breaking the latch. A person, later identified as SHO Rupinder Singh, whom the complainant has never met before, entered the bathroom. Without any conversation, he started physically assaulting the complainant with punches and kicks, including a kick on the private parts. It was further alleged that the two accompanying Constables, who were not wearing nameplates, held the complainant tightly by his hands during the assault. After having dragged the complainant into the bedroom, the said Rupinder Singh threatened the complainant to vacate the house and hand-over the possession to Mr. Sharma (owner of Sharma Tent House, Phase-10, Mohali), Mukesh Virmani, Pawan Mahajan, Chetan Mahajan and their accomplices. He also issued threat that failure to comply within one week would result in fabricated police cases against the complainant and his family members alongwith severe consequences. It was further alleged that before the alleged assault the aforesaid accused alongwith ASI Bhupinder Singh had forcibly entered the house of the complainant by breaking open the main wooden and mesh doors whereupon all the aforesaid accused physically assaulted the wife of the complainant as she attempted to record their illegal entry using her mobile. The accused snatched the mobile phone of the wife of the complainant and when she tried to escape to the drawing room, the accused dragged her outside to the veranda and continued their aggression. It was further alleged by the complainant that his son namely Kartik Saini, who was in his bedroom, was also assaulted by the accused, including HC Sukhyit Singh. They inflicted severe injuries, tore his T-shirt and chased him outside the house through the back gate. Even on the street (outside House No.1050), the accused Sukhjeet Singh and one Constable continued to assault the son of the complainant, snatched his gold chain (approx. 1 tola in weight) and his mobile phone. It was further alleged in the complaint that before leaving at around 1:00 PM, the accused stole the car keys of the complainant and drove away the same to an undisclosed location. The dashboard of the car had Rs.42,500/- in cash and three debit cards. On account of the physical injuries sustained, the complainant and his family sought treatment at Government Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. In view of the facts narrated hereinabove as also involvement of the Police officials, the complainant had requested for the strict action.

3. The petitioners (who appeared in person) have argued that the complaint which was filed by them contains clear a