IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

258 Date of decision: 01.04.2026 LALIT MOHAN PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Vipul Babuta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG Punjab.

Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, Mr. Hiten Chugh, Advocate and Mr. Tisha Joshi, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 11.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. The petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 seeks the following reliefs:

i) Direction to official respondents No.3 to 6 to follow the law and procedure as prescribed in Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023.

ii) Direction to respondents No.3 to 6 to take appropriate legal action against respondents No.7 to 11 and other persons accompanying them, on the basis of representation dated

06.02.2025.

iii) Direction to respondent No.2 to 6 to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation on the allegations levelled by the petitioner and to call status report with regard to representation dated 06.02.2025.

2. Notice of motion was issued to official respondents on

01.09.2025. Status report filed by the State of Punjab is already on record.

3. Learned State counsel submits that inquiry on petitioner’s complaint (Annexure P-5) was conducted. Proceedings under Section 126/170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 were initiated against respondent Nos.8 and 10 vide DDR No.23 dated 22.01.2026 and DDR No.11 dated 09.01.2026. He further submits that FIR No.165 dated 25.11.2024 under Sections 115(2), 127, 351, 191(3), 190, 117(2), 324(2) BNS was registered on complaint of respondent No.10-Pushpinder Lal against the petitioner and others. Similarly, on statement of petitioner, cross-case vide DDR No.15 dated 15.01.2025 under Sections 74, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 BNS was registered in the same FIR against respondents No.7 to 11. Regarding the second occurrence of 06.11.2024, which occurred at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, pertaining to beatings allegedly given to the petitioner by the private respondents, no cognizable offence was made out and DDR No.20 dated

27.11.2025 was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits though action was taken by official respondents on his representation, Annexure P-5 during pendency of the petition, again private respondents threatened and attacked the petitioner on 22.01.2026. CCTV footage of the incident and photographs were placed on record. A written complaint was moved to the police authorities but no action was taken.

5. From the status report filed by the police, it is evident that action on representation dated 06.02.2025 of the petitioner has been taken and cross DDR has been registered on complaint of the petitioner in FIR No.165 dated 25.11.2024. If the petitioner still has any grievance with regard to a subsequent event, it is open to him to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./ 175(3) B.N.S.S. before learned Magistrate and avail alternative remedy.

6. 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 Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri V