CRM-M/36870/2026 of VEERPAL KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS on 13 July 2026

1. The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks following reliefs:

(i) direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for registration of FIR against respondents No. 4 to 7.

(iii) direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide representation dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-5).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14.04.2026, respondents No. 4 and 5, parents-in-law and respondent No. 7, Manjit Kaur, forcibly took the petitioner to a private hospital at Sangrur to get her pregnancy terminated. On 07.05.2026, her parents-in-law physically assaulted her inside the house with clear intention to harm the unborn child causing four injuries, including injury on abdomen, as per MLR Annexure P-4. The incident was recorded in CCTV camera. Despite medical evidence and complaint made, the local police refused to register FIR against in-laws of the petitioner. Soon thereafter, petitioner and her husband were involved in FIR No. 89 dated 15.05.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police

Station Dirba, District Sangrur at the behest of private respondents. A detailed representation dated 10.06.2026 was moved to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, for taking action against respondents No. 4 to 7 and to register FIR, but to no avail. Prayer is for issuing directions to official respondents to take appropriate action against private respondents and to register an FIR.

3. Notice of motion to official respondents only.

4. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents and on instructions from ASI Jagdev Singh submits that petitioner’s representations dated 20.05.2026 and 25.05.2026 were received and were decided by Chowki Incharge, Dirba, District Sangrur. Both representations were consigned as allegations of the petitioner against the private respondents were not found substantiated.

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. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) BNSS), is wide enough and empowers a Magistrate to pass orders for registration of FIR, such other orders as may be necessary for monitoring investigation and for ensuring proper investigation. Since, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary remedy under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not warranted.

9. The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, if she so desires.

10. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 13.07.2026

JUDGE

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