High Court Should Not Be Approached Directly for Allegedly Improper Police Investigation; Remedy Lies Before Magistrate Under Section 175(3) BNSS: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Prabhdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-6560-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Jain

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that investigation of a criminal offence, including the identification and nomination of persons as accused, falls primarily within the domain of the investigating agency. The High Court cannot ordinarily issue a direction requiring the police to array particular persons as accused merely because the complainant alleges their involvement.

Once the investigating agency submits its police report, the competent court possesses sufficient powers to examine the material collected during investigation and take appropriate action in accordance with law. A person dissatisfied with the manner in which the police is conducting an investigation must ordinarily avail the statutory remedies before the superior police authorities or approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Magistrate’s powers under Section 175(3) BNSS are sufficiently wide to order registration of an FIR, direct a proper investigation and monitor whether the investigation is being conducted fairly and effectively. Although the Magistrate cannot personally conduct the investigation, the Magistrate may issue all incidental directions necessary to ensure that the investigating agency performs its statutory duties properly.

The Court reiterated that filing a petition before the High Court should not become the immediate remedy whenever a person alleges that an FIR has not been properly investigated. The statutory mechanism before the police hierarchy and the Magistrate must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction.

Summary: The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to the State authorities to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into FIR No. 0165 dated 4 November 2025, registered under Section 201 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

The dispute concerned an allegedly fabricated order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and a consequential order purportedly passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti. According to the petitioner, these documents were used to induce the Patwari to make an incorrect entry in the revenue record stating that the High Court had restrained the sale or mortgage of the disputed property.

The petitioner asserted that no such restraint order had ever been passed by the High Court. On the contrary, the writ petition instituted by Jasbir Singh and others had been dismissed on 1 May 2024. It was alleged that the false revenue entry was engineered to facilitate an attempt to grab the petitioner’s land.

The petitioner contended that the investigating authorities were acting in concert with the principal accused and attempting to shield the actual beneficiaries of the alleged fraud. He pointed out that the FIR had been registered under Section 201 BNS only against Revenue Patwari Sukhjinder Singh, without properly investigating the persons who had allegedly prepared and used the fabricated documents.

According to the petitioner, Jasbir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Atinderjeet Singh were the persons responsible for preparing the forged orders, affixing fake seals and submitting the relevant applications. He therefore sought their nomination as accused and the invocation of appropriate penal provisions relating to forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating and falsification of public records.

Counsel appearing for Bikramjit Singh assisted the State in opposing the petition. The State submitted that the alleged forged order of the High Court had never surfaced during the inquiry. It acknowledged that no order restricting the sale or mortgage of the property had been passed, but pointed out that the incorrect entry recorded by the Patwari had subsequently been corrected.

The State further submitted that the authorities had conducted an inquiry and taken appropriate action after verifying that Revenue Patwari Sukhjinder Singh had made an incorrect entry in the Jamabandi for the year 2018-19.

The High Court found that, despite being presented as a request for fair and impartial investigation, the petition essentially sought a judicial direction requiring the investigating agency to nominate three specified persons as accused. The Court held that it would not be appropriate to issue such a direction because identifying the persons responsible for an offence is primarily a matter for the investigating agency.

The Court relied upon Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409. In that decision, the Supreme Court recognised that the Magistrate’s authority under Section 156(3) CrPC is broad enough to include ordering registration of an FIR, directing a proper investigation and monitoring the investigation to ensure that it is conducted lawfully.

The Supreme Court had also cautioned High Courts against entertaining writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC merely because a person complained that the police had either failed to register an FIR or had not conducted a proper investigation. In such cases, the aggrieved person must first approach the superior police officers and, if the grievance remains unresolved, seek relief from the Magistrate or institute a criminal complaint.

Applying these principles, the High Court declined to direct the investigating agency to array the persons named by the petitioner as accused. It observed that the competent criminal court could examine the material collected by the police after submission of the investigation report and take appropriate action if the record disclosed the involvement of any additional person.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to issue any direction requiring the investigating agency to nominate Jasbir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Atinderjeet Singh as accused in the FIR. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law before the competent court at the appropriate stage.