1. Petitioners seek registration of a criminal case against the accused for alleged offences and protection due to perceived threats. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(P&H) 1346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
Komal And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others – Respondents
CRM-M-52149-2026
Decided On : 11-11-2026
Important Points
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked for the non-registration of an FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, unless the urgency of the circumstances warrants otherwise.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 173(1), 173(4) and 175(3) - Registration of FIR - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative efficacious statutory remedies - Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when structured sequential mechanisms for initiating criminal prosecution are available - Grievances regarding non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation should be addressed through the statutory framework unless urgency warrants otherwise - Recourse lies first before the officer-in-charge of the police station, then the Superintendent of Police, and thereafter before the Magistrate. (Para 4)
(B) Protection of Petitioners - Direction to evaluate threat perception - Where petitioners express fear, the concerned police authority is directed to assess the threat perception; if found true, protection as admissible in law shall be provided, otherwise a speaking order shall be passed. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to take action against the accused individuals and to register an FIR against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners have a statutory remedy to approach the Area Magistrate by moving an appropriate application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the registration of the FIR.
Issues: Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for the registration of an FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available under the BNSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in the first instance for the non-registration of an FIR because the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution through the police and the judiciary. (Para 4)
Result: Petition disposed of.
(B) Protection of Petitioners - Direction to evaluate threat perception - Where petitioners express fear, the concerned police authority is directed to assess the threat perception; if found true, protection as admissible in law shall be provided, otherwise a speaking order shall be passed. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to take action against the accused individuals and to register an FIR against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners have a statutory remedy to approach the Area Magistrate by moving an appropriate application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the registration of the FIR.
Issues: Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for the registration of an FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available under the BNSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in the first instance for the non-registration of an FIR because the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution through the police and the judiciary. (Para 4)
Result: Petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Amolak Singh Johal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Amolak Singh Johal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners pray for registration of FIR, while the State maintains the existence of alternative efficacious statutory remedies under the law. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked for FIR registration when efficacious statutory remedies remain available under the Criminal Procedure framework. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. A petitioner must exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the High Court for the registration of an FIR, absent exceptional circumstances of urgency. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. The petition is disposed of with directions for the police to assess threat perception and provide protection if necessary without mandating FIR registration. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Can a writ petition be maintained to compel the police to register an FIR?
No, if a person has a grievance regarding the non-registration of an FIR or deficient investigation, they must first exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before invoking writ jurisdiction, unless urgent circumstances exist. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What is the appropriate procedure for a citizen seeking registration of an FIR under the BNSS?
The statutory framework requires moving the officer-in-charge of the police station first. If the FIR is not registered, the complainant may approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and subsequently the Magistrate under the provisions of the BNSS. (Para 4 , 5 )
JUDGMENT :
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the official respondents to provide status report on the online written complaint dated 14.10.2025 registered by the petitioners through the Punjab Police Citizen’s Portal (Annexure P-1) and to take appropriate action including registration of FIR under the relevant provisions of BNSS, 2023 and further to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of unknown persons.
2. Upon notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon (2008) 2 SCC 409, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. in SLP (Crl.) No.1088 of 2026, Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided vide judgment dated 04.05.2026, has held 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.
8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) 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.”
5. The prayer of the petitioners is to take action against the accused and to register the FIR against them. However, the petitioners have the remedy to approach the Area Magistrate by moving an appropriate application under BNSS, 2023. As such, no further action is called for in the present petition.
6. However, Respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, is directed to look into the complaint and decide the same on the basis of threat perception felt by the petitioners and if the threat perception is found to be true, then the protection as admissible in law shall be provided. In case, the concerned SSP is of the view that no protection is required, then a speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners.
However, this order shall not be construed as a direction to register FIR.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
