High Court Declines FIR Direction: Mere Allegations Without Evidence Insufficient to Invoke BNSS Section 528 Powers
Case Name: Usha v. State of Haryana and others
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-12401-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked for directing registration of FIR or investigation in the absence of credible, corroborative material and exceptional circumstances warranting such intervention.
Summary: The petition was filed seeking directions for registration of an FIR against private respondents and police officials on the basis of a complaint dated 13.11.2025, along with a prayer for appointment of an independent investigating officer and protection to life and liberty. The petition invoked Section 528 BNSS alleging inaction by authorities.
The factual matrix revealed that a dispute regarding water drainage escalated into allegations that police officials along with private persons forcibly entered the petitioner’s house at night, committed house trespass, used abusive language, and illegally detained her husband and minor son. It was further alleged that CCTV equipment and mobile phones were seized and data deleted to suppress evidence.
Despite submitting representations to senior police officers, no FIR was registered, while a counter FIR was allegedly lodged against the petitioner’s family. The petitioner relied on the principle laid down in Lalita Kumari to argue that registration of FIR is mandatory where cognizable offences are disclosed.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations were uncorroborated and required verification, and that no imminent threat or exceptional circumstance existed warranting High Court intervention.
The Court referred to its earlier precedent emphasizing that ordinarily such grievances should first be addressed before the Illaqa Magistrate, who is competent to order registration of FIR and monitor investigation. It reiterated that High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is extraordinary and must be exercised with self-restraint.
On merits, the Court observed that the allegations lacked independent verification or corroborative evidence, and no credible material established immediate danger or negligence by police. Mere dissatisfaction with the pace or manner of investigation does not justify judicial interference.
Further, the Court stressed that extraordinary jurisdiction is not meant for speculative grievances or generalized allegations, and must be supported by cogent and prima facie evidence demonstrating real and immediate injustice.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case was made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention.