IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.12.2025 Kulwinder Kaur ..... Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in the petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for setting aside order dated 03.12.2025 in complaint bearing CRM-1034-2024 titled as ‘Kulwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 was filed, before learned Magistrate for directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register FIR under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 and 149 against respondents No.5 to 12 and investigate the case. Previously, petitioner filed a complaint on 21.09.2024 before respondent No.2 which was marked to respondent No.3 and to respondent No.4 but no FIR was registered, though, respondents No.5 to 12 had committed grave offences. Only GD No.23 dated 26.11.2016 was registered pursuant to the complaint. The offences committed by respondents No.5 to 12 were cognizable and non-bailable and police was duty bound to register FIR. Learned trial Court erroneously declined the prayer for registration of FIR and wrongly treated application of the petitioner as a complaint adjourning it for preliminary evidence. It has been prayed that order dated 03.12.2025 be set aside and respondents No.2 to 4 be directed to register an FIR pursuant to GD No.23 dated 26.11.2016.

3. Records shows that an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 was filed by the petitioner before learned Area Magistrate alleging that another incident had occurred on the same day with her husband and, on statement of her husband, FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar, Batala but the matter was compromised with the accused in the FIR and a quashing petition was filed. Thereafter, the FIR was quashed by the High Court but that incident was separate. On the same day, on 26.11.2016, when her husband returned home at 9:30 AM all the accused came outside their house, abused them and forcibly entered their house, armed with weapons and sticks with which they caused her injuries. She was beaten up, kicked and dragged and accused Beant Singh, Nirmal Singh and Gursimran Pal Singh committed indecent act with her with bad intention and tore her clothes. On arrival of Jasbir Kaur, they left the spot extending threats to kill her. The police was immediately informed and her statement was recorded vide DDR No.23 dated 26.11.2016 but no action was taken despite repeated requests and repeated visits to the police station. Rather, the police projected that the matter had been compromised with the accused though, in fact no compromise has been effected in the case. The police was not taking any action under pressure of the accused.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner has ongoing land dispute with accused Nos.5 to 12. Learned JMIC, Batala after hearing the submissions made, noticing the provisions of Section 175(3) of BNSS and examining the record, did not find it a fit case to direct the police station to register FIR and ordered that the application would be treated as a complaint relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Joseph Maihuri @ Vishveshwarananda & Anr. Vs. Swami Sachidanand Harisakshi & Anr.’ Crl. Appeal No.500 of 2001, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3170/2000 and of the Allahabad High Court in the case of ‘Kiran Devi vs. Stateof U.P. and others’, 2007(15) RCR (Criminal) 403.

5. Undoubtedly, a Magistrate is fully competent to pass an order to register a case and investigate it on an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. It is also settled law that an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS may also be treated as a complaint and the Magistrate can ask the applicant/complainant to lead preliminary evidence. At the same time, a Magistrate is not bou