The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to criminalise a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, thereby reinforcing the demarcation between criminal and civil remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ratinder Kaur, alleged that her paternal uncles were obstructing her claim to a share in the property of her late grandfather, Mohinder Singh. She claimed that a Will purportedly executed by her grandfather was registered eight years after his death, and that the uncles were threatening her and her physically disabled brother.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s brother is unmarried and physically disabled, residing with her.
- The alleged Will was registered approximately eight years after the grandfather’s demise.
- The petitioner submitted complaints through the office of Respondent No. 3 (a government authority) and attached annexures P-2 to P-31.
- Despite repeated representations, no FIR was registered against the private respondents.
- The petitioner feared threats to her life and liberty and sought protection.
Procedural History
- Petition filed: Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (date of filing not specified).
- Representation examined: Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, examined the petition and concluded the matter was predominantly civil.
- State’s opposition: Deputy Advocate General Jasjit Singh Rattu opposed the petition, urging dismissal.
- Hearing: Oral hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal.
- Decision: 28.07.2026 - Petition dismissed.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Sought direction to register an FIR against the private respondents and protection for herself and her brother, contending that the threats warranted criminal action.
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the controversy had already been examined by the police and was civil in nature; therefore, Section 528 could not be invoked.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for (i) registration of an FIR against the private respondents, (ii) appropriate action against them, and (iii) protection of her life and liberty and that of her disabled brother.
The Legal Issue
Whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be invoked to direct the registration of an FIR and criminal proceedings in a dispute that fundamentally concerns civil rights to property and succession.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that the threats to her life and liberty, coupled with the alleged obstruction of her property rights, created a situation warranting criminal investigation.
- She relied on the broad language of Section 528, contending that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice.
For the Respondent/State
- The State maintained that the Senior Superintendent of Police had already examined the complaint and classified it as a civil matter.
- It emphasized that Section 528 is limited to matters where a criminal offence is evident, and cannot be used to give a criminal colour to a civil property dispute.
- The State urged dismissal, stating that the petitioner could pursue civil remedies before the appropriate civil court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the nature of the grievance, noting that it centred on the petitioner’s alleged entitlement to a share in her grandfather’s property and the validity of a registered Will. The Court observed that adjudicating such issues would inevitably involve determination of succession rights, title, and ownership - matters that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of a civil court.
"The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be invoked to impart a criminal colour to a dispute essentially concerning civil and property rights."
The Court reiterated that Section 528 mirrors Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whose scope is confined to preventing abuse of the criminal process and ensuring that criminal law is not employed to settle civil disputes. By invoking the principle that the criminal jurisdiction is a residual power, the Court held that where a dispute is fundamentally civil, the appropriate forum is the civil court, and the petitioner is free to approach it.
Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the competing claims, the Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, emphasizing that the petitioner must seek redress through civil proceedings.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed in its entirety. No FIR was ordered against the private respondents. The Court held that the dispute is civil in nature and that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked to criminalise it. All pending miscellaneous applications arising out of these proceedings were also disposed of, and no further orders were required.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 528 Is Not a Substitute for Civil Remedies
- Lawyers must assess whether the grievance involves a civil right before invoking Section 528.
- If the core issue is succession, title, or property, the matter must be filed in a civil court.
Criminal Jurisdiction Remains Limited to Evident Offences
- Threats or intimidation, if not accompanied by a cognizable offence, cannot alone trigger the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528.
- Parties should first approach the police with a specific criminal complaint; otherwise, the remedy lies in civil litigation.
Strategic Litigation Planning
- Counsel should advise clients to segregate civil and criminal aspects of a dispute and pursue them in their respective forums.
- Filing a petition under Section 528 merely to obtain an FIR, where the dispute is civil, is likely to be dismissed.
