IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 28.10.2025 Simran ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

1. The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks the following reliefs:-

(i) Direction to official respondents no.1 to 3 to register an FIR against respondent no.5-Sanjay Kumar for threatening to kill the petitioner and blackmailing her on the pretext of uploading her videos on social media;

(ii) Direction to official respondents to decide representation dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent no.5 are neighbours. Respondent no.5 was 10 years older than the petitioner and on many occasions, when petitioner was minor, respondent no.5 tried to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel further submits that on 30.05.2025, when petitioner was coming back home from tuition, respondent no.5 met her at Kotkapura Road, pressurized her to sit in his auto rickshaw, threatening to upload her personal recordings and videos on social media, if she refused. When petitioner attained majority, respondent no.5 kidnapped her and performed marriage with her against her wishes. He also filed protection petition in the High Court i.e. CRWP No.5973 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.06.2025.

3. He further submits that a panchayat was convened and respondent no.5 agreed to hand over all the photographs, videos and mobile phone of the petitioner. Yet, respondent no.5 continued to harass and threaten the petitioner. Petitioner moved representation to the official respondents, but no action was taken. It is, thus, prayed that direction be issued to official respondent(s) to register FIR against respondent no.5.

4. Notice of motion to official respondents only.

5. On advance notice of the petition, learned State counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4 and on instructions from Inspector Jaskarandeep Singh, submits that complaint of the petitioner was inquired into by the police and was consigned to records after inquiry. He opposes the prayer on the ground that inherent powers of Court under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were not to be invoked for ordering registration of FIR. It is, thus, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. 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.

7. 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 Cons