Seema Grewal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-46690-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 30.10.2026


Seema Grewal and another ...Petitioners

V/s

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL


Argued by: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
*
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The instant petition, preferred under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘the BNSS’)
seeks quashing of Complaint CIS No.COMI-157-2026 (Annexure P-
10), Order dated 03.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) and FIR No.256, dated
06.08.2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Hisar, District
Hisar under Section 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short ‘the BNS’) (Annexure P-12).
2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is
that on 12.11.2010, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized
with the son (Dharmendra Punia) of the complainant/respondent
No.3. It is alleged that soon thereafter, harassment of the petitioner
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -2-
started on account of dowry and on 15.01.2016, she was thrown out
of her matrimonial home. Repeated panchayats for reconciliation did
not yield any fruitful result, as a result of which, petitioner No.1 filed
a complaint against respondent No.3. Other litigation also ensued. A
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also
filed and vide judgment dated 29.11.2024 the Family Court,
Panchkula granted a decree of divorce. (Petitioner No.2 is stated to
be an ex-serviceman who served in the Indian Navy and is the father
of petitioner No.1). It is the case of petitioner No.1 that as per the
government instructions/policy, the dependents of ex-servicemen are
entitled for reservation under the ESM/DESM category. DESM
certificate was accordingly issued in the name of petitioner No.1 by
the Zila Sainik Board, Hisar on 31.03.2016 (Annexure P-1).
2.1 On 15.03.2016, the Haryana Public Service Commission
had issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Assistant
Professors in various subjects (Annexure P-2). Petitioner No.1
applied under the DESM category and was selected. She was
appointed as an Assistant Professor in the subject of Computer
Science and was posted at PG College, Ambala Cantt (Annexure P-
3).
2.2 It is the case of petitioner No.1 that respondent No.3
started filing false complaints against the petitioners much after the
grant of divorce. On 22.04.2025, the first complaint (Annexure P-4)
was moved which, upon investigation was found to be false. The
investigation report dated 24.04.2025 is on record as Annexure P-5.
2.3 A second complaint dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-6)
was filed, which was also found to be false vide investigation report
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -3-
dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-7). Yet another complaint was filed on
18.11.2025 (Annexure P-8) before the SP Hisar, and while the same
was pending, the complainant/respondent No.3 filed a complaint
before the Area Magistrate (Annexure P-10) under Section 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 BNS.
2.4 It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had,
in collusion with the Secretary of the Zila Sainik Board, obtained
DESM certificate No.42 dated 31.03.2016 and had used it to secure
employment against the reserved category. It was alleged that the
petitioner had concealed her income, properties and bank
transactions, and had falsely been claimed by petitioner No.2 to be
unemployed and dependent upon him.
2.5 Vide order dated 03.08.2026 (Annexure P-11), the Court
of the Area Magistrate allowed the complaint under Section 175(3)
BNSS and issued directions to the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines,
Hisar to register an FIR and thereafter conduct thorough
investigation. Consequently, FIR No.0256, dated 06.08.2026 was
registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar under Section
318(4) BNS.
2.6 It is the case of the petitioners that the order dated
03.08.2026 is not sustainable since it is totally non-speaking and has
been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 175(3) BNSS, as
per which the Magistrate could have ordered investigation in the
matter, but instead the Magistrate ordered registration of an FIR and
thereafter investigation.
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -4-
2.7 Reliance has also been placed upon the provisions of
Section 223 (proviso) BNSS to say that cognizance could not have
been taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
2.8 On 15.09.2026, the following order was passed by this
Court:-
“At the outset, State of Haryana is directed to file a short
affidavit as regards the assertions made in the petition. The
affidavit would also state as to whether, before passing of order
dated 03.08.2026 (Annexure P-11), any report was sought from
the investigation agency.
List on 01.10.2026.”

3. In compliance with the same, a status report was filed
wherein, it was stated the that the Court of Area Magistrate had
sought an action taken report from the Investigating Officer, which
was duly submitted. It is the case of the official respondents that as
per the inquiry conducted, petitioner No.1 was found to have
committed the offences and it was so stated in the action taken report
also. It is, therefore, the case of the official respondents that no
interference is called for.
4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
5. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the impugned order is not sustainable as it is
completely non-speaking and displays total non-application of mind.
It was also submitted that the two previous inquiry reports were
concealed in the complaint and even the respondents did not mention
about the same in the action taken report. It was submitted that
initiation of criminal proceedings has grave consequences and before
taking a decision, the Court concerned is expected to apply its mind
MANI KUMAR to the matter and then exercise its powers in a judicious manner.
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -5-
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
7. It is well settled that before passing an order under
Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) Cr.P.C), a Magistrate must
apply his judicial mind and provide cogent reasons for directing
investigation. Extensive reasons, though not required, the order
should reflect application of mind as initiation of criminal
proceedings has grave consequences for an individual. Reference in
this regard can be made to the judgments in the case of Priyanka
Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2015)
6 SCC 287; Babu Venkatesh and others v. State of Karnataka and
another (2022) 5 SCC 639; Ramdev Food Products Private Limited
v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 amongst others. A similar
view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Bhatnagar
& Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2025 AIR SupremeCourt
3427. It was reiterated that whenever any power is bestowed upon a
judicial authority, it is incumbent that it should be exercise on the
basis of sound legal principles by application of mind and by a
speaking order. It was held that a reasoned order upon application of
judicious mind is inherent while passing an order under Section 156
(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, while considering the issue in hand
before the Apex Court, it was held that once the Magistrate had
perused the application and the complaint attached to it and was
satisfied that a cognizable offence was disclosed, it proved
application of mind. It was further held that once such a satisfaction
had been recorded by the Magistrate, even if wrongly, it was not
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -6-
liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers by the
higher Courts.
“40. The mere stating in the order that the counsel
has been heard and the application and the
material produced have been perused, may not be
indicative of the fact that the Magistrate had
actually applied his mind to the controversy in
issue. However, the fact that the perusal of the
application and complaint attached to it, satisfied
the Magistrate that it discloses a cognizable
offence, is very material and relevant which
proves the application of mind by him. Once such
a satisfaction has been recorded by the Magistrate,
even if wrongly, it is not liable to be interfered
with in exercise of inherent powers by the higher
courts. The powers vested in the court either under
Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India are not for the purposes of
appreciating the evidence or examining the
correctness of the evidence collected during
investigation to record a different conclusion other
than recorded by the Magistrate that he is satisfied
that a cognizable offence has been disclosed in the
application/complaint. Moreover, when
information disclosing commission of cognizable
offence is conveyed to the police station, the
officer-in-charge of the police station cannot
refuse to register the FIR. Therefore, if an FIR has
not been registered for any reason at the police
station and the Magistrate is satisfied that the
information discloses a cognizable offence, he can
certainly direct for its registration obviously on
compliance of the provisions of Section 154(3) of
the CrPC. This is exactly what has been done by
the Magistrate by way of his order dated
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -7-
01.07.2005 though ignoring the remedy under
Section 154(3) of the CrPC which, as said earlier,
amounts to mere procedural irregularity.
41. In these facts and circumstances, for the reason
that the Magistrate not only heard the counsel and
perused the documents but has even considered
the case law cited and has opined that the
information discloses a cognizable offence,
implies that he has actually applied his mind to the
contents of the application before passing the
impugned order directing for the registration of the
FIR. Therefore, we find no fault with the order of
the High Court in refusing to quash the order dated
01.07.2005 on the above score.”

7.1 In the case of Accamma Sam Jacob Vs. The State of
Karnataka & Anr. 2026 (2) RCR (Criminal) 729, the Apex Court
held that High Court should not interfered with orders directing
investigation under Section 156 (3) unless such orders lacked legal
foundation or were perverse.
8. Though, on first blush, the impugned order appears to
have been passed without due application of mind but once the same
is tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the
judgments referred to hereinabove, it clearly emerges that there is no
illegality in the same. The impugned order is reproduced thus:-
“While considering the prayer made by complainant for sending
the present complaint to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar, for
regisgtration of the FIR in the matter under section 175 (3) of BNSS,
the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of
the complaint.
After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and going
through the contents of the complaint, this Court is of the view that the
matter requires to be investigated by the police. So, the application in
hand under section 175 (3) of BNSS is hereby allowed. Copy of
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-46690-2026 -8-
complaint and annexed documents, if any, be sent to the SHO, PS Civil
Lines Hisar with the direction to register the FIR in the matter and
thereafter conduct the thorough investigation in the matter. File be put
up on 10.08.2026 for awaiting FIR from SHO concerned.”

9. Not only this, though the order does not mention about
any action taken report having been filed, the affidavit filed before
this Court duly states that an action report had been filed in which
also it had been stated that employment had been obtained on the
basis of an DESM Certificate by suppression of relevant facts.
10. As regards the argument that the provisions of Section
223 (proviso) BNSS were not complied with, the same is devoid of
merit for, the said provision would apply before taking of cognizance
in a private complaint. It is well settled that when a direction is issued
for registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS (156(3)
Cr.P.C.), the same cannot be termed to cognizance having been taken.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, no illegality or
perversity is found in the impugned order, warranting interference by
this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is found to be devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed.
All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.


(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
vcgarg/Mani Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document