CRM-M/34224/2026 of DHARMO DEVI Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 22 July 2026

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 DHARMO DEVI ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks following reliefs:

(i) direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to constitute Special Investigation Team for investigation of FIR No. 142 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines; or

(ii) to transfer investigation of aforesaid FIR to CBI or Crime Branch.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, mother of deceased, lodged aforesaid FIR against respondent No. 4 regarding abetment of suicide by her only son. After lodging of FIR, false FIR No. 009 dated 12.01.2026 under Sections 506, 498-A, 406, 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code was lodged against petitioner by respondent No. 4 at Women Police Station Bhiwani, in connivance with the local police, after 14 years of marriage. The FIR lodged by petitioner was not investigated fairly and police prepared a cancellation report from which an inference could be drawn that the investigating authorities bypassed the relevant statute. The conclusions recorded in the challan were perverse, unsupported by any material on record. Investigation was influenced by respondent No. 4 and her family members and was conducted in a biased manner. Petitioner was entitled to fair investigation. Thus, the investigation be transferred to CBI or to Crime Branch or to a Special Investigation Team.

3. Learned State counsel appears on behalf of official respondents on advance notice and submits that petitioner’s only son committed suicide in Women Cell, Women Police Station, Bhiwani, when both the parties were called in connection with a complaint filed by respondent No. 4 alleging cruelty, demands of dowry etc. A quarrel occurred during the course of which, he consumed poisonous substance. The police, after due and proper investigation, cancelled the case as private respondents were not found involved. The report was pending approval of Superintendent of Police.

4. FIR under Section 108 BNS was registered against private respondents No. 4 to 9 on complaint of the petitioner who stated that her elder son Kuldeep was married to Monika on 27.10.2012 and the couple had a child Saksham. Monika, under the influence of her family members, quarrelled with her son and frequently left for her parental home without information. When Kuldeep went to fetch her, she and her family members mis-behaved with him, beat him up but he did not disclose anything to them out of shame. However, his behaviour became worse, day by day. She and her family members tried to convince Monika but when Rajbir and his wife threatened to file a false dowry case against them, out of fear, her son did not say anything to Monika. On 26.05.2025, Monika went to meet her maternal uncle whereafter in connivance with her family members, she filed a false application on 02.06.2025 in Women Cell, Women Police Station Bhiwani. She along with her son and other family members reached Women Police Station Bhiwani on 11.06.2025, where accused Monika, Rajbir, Monika’s mother, her brother Ravi and maternal uncle Rajesh started abusing them, misbehaved with Kuldeep and threatened him. Kuldeep cried that he wanted to meet his child Saksham but was not permitted and was threatened. Distressed and threatened, at about 12.15 PM, he swallowed poisonous substance in Women Cell, Women Police Station Bhiwani and was taken to hospital where he died during treatment.

5. An order for transfer of investigation to CBI or any other agency is not to be passed a matter of routine, only for the reason that the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation. The inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances, where it becomes necessary to meet the ends of justice. From the arguments addressed and the material on record, the Court is not convinced that the case is of such a rare and exceptional character as to warrant an order for re-investigation/de novo investigation by CBI or SIT. Except for general allegation that investigating authorities bypassed statutory law, there is no material to suggest that the investigation conducted by the police is either biased or tainted. There is no good reason to believe that the investigating officer was influenced into submitting the cancellation report or he deliberately cancelled the FIR for extraneous considerations. Since, cancellation report has been prepared and would be submitted before the competent court, it would not be appropriate to record a finding on merits of the case. It is not a fit case to direct investigation/re-investigation.

6. Petition stands disposed of. Petitioner would, however, be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the competent Court and seek alternative remedies in accordance with law.

7. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JULY 22, 2026

JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No