CRM-M/39144/2026 of SUNITA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 20 July 2026

1. The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide representation dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) moved by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and her family were the lawful owners of agricultural land in village Ramgarh, Panjokhra Budhanpur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. On 07.06.2026, when petitioner’s son went to the agricultural land to cultivate the same, private respondents obstructed and physically assaulted him. On 08.06.2020, another violent assault was committed upon the petitioner’s family. Representation dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), regarding the incident was moved to Inspector General of Police, Karnal Range, Karnal, but no action was taken on the same. Learned counsel submits that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied if appropriate direction is issued to the respondent No.2- Superintendent of

Police, Karnal, to consider and decide representation dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) moved by petitioner and take necessary action thereupon in a time bound manner.

3. Notice of motion to official respondents only.

4. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and submits that there was an FIR No. 242 dated 09.06.2026 under Sections 115, 118(1), 305, 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered against the petitioner in Police Station Indri, Karnal at the behest of private respondents. Petitioner was on anticipatory bail in the said FIR. Her son too was an accused in the FIR. On the statement of the petitioner, a DDR No. 025 dated 12.06.2026 was recorded regarding cross version. The petitioner, however, did not join investigation, which was still pending.

5. 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.

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 Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”

7. Similar were observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341.

8. DDR on statement of petitioner already stands recorded and investigation is in progress. At this stage, no interference by this Court is necessitated in the exercise of powers under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, if she so desires.

9. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 20.07.2026

JUDGE

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