The High Court clarified that where, pursuant to its previous directions to register FIRs for cognizable offences following due process, an enquiry had already concluded on the matter and relevant civil suits were dismissed for non-prosecution, contempt is not made out for failure to register a fresh FIR on the same facts. The judgment upholds the prevailing precedent laid down in Lalita Kumari and recognizes the sufficiency of compliance affidavits in demonstrating adherence to court directions. Applicable principally to law enforcement actions and contempt petitions, this ruling serves as binding precedent within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COCP/1322/2025 of JASWINDER KAUR Vs KULDEEP CHAHAL |
| CNR | PHHC010397912025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether failure to register a fresh FIR, after prior enquiry on identical facts and dismissal of civil suits, constitutes contempt of court directions requiring FIR registration for cognizable offences. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that when prior detailed enquiry has already been conducted on the same cause of action, and the same matter has been adjudicated and dismissed by civil courts, the requirement to immediately register an FIR as outlined in previous directions does not apply anew to a fresh complaint on identical facts. The compliance affidavit provided by the Police, detailing the steps taken and existing proceedings, was found sufficient to establish adherence to the court’s prior directions. Therefore, in such circumstances, no wilful disobedience or contempt is committed. The judgment rests on established precedent and factual compliance, not on a mechanical requirement to register FIRs in all situations regardless of prior adjudication or enquiry. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Lalita Kumari (Supreme Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed for contempt alleging non-registration of FIR despite court directions. The Police filed a compliance affidavit showing prior enquiry and attached reports. The subject dispute had been raised previously in civil litigation, both of which were dismissed in default. The alleged offence pertained to property transactions, and repeated complaints/applications had been made by petitioner and her mother-in-law. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering contempt petitions involving non-registration of FIR after prior enquiry |
| Follows | Supreme Court decision in Lalita Kumari regarding FIR registration for cognizable offences |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that if a prior enquiry on the same facts has been conducted and relevant civil litigation dismissed for non-prosecution, a fresh FIR need not be registered despite general directions for FIR registration in cognizable offences.
- Compliance affidavits articulating past enquiries and legal proceedings will be considered sufficient evidence of adherence to earlier court directions.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to argue that there is no contempt where authorities have already investigated and adjudicated the subject matter, even if a fresh complaint is filed on the same facts.
- Reinforces that courts will examine the genuine presence of contempt, not just technical non-compliance, where prior processes exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first considered the directions in the prior writ petition (CWP-2066-2018), which required immediate registration of FIR for cognizable offences, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari.
- The compliance affidavit from the Commissioner of Police demonstrated that the matter had been investigated previously; reports from 2018 and 2024 on identical facts were placed on record.
- Both civil suits filed earlier regarding the same claim had been dismissed in default by civil courts, and neither the petitioner nor her predecessor pursued those remedies further.
- The affidavit explained that per standing orders, fresh enquiry or FIR on the same cause of action is not permissible to avoid multiple parallel proceedings.
- The Court concluded there was no wilful non-compliance or disobedience of its earlier order. The requirement to register an FIR does not compel authorities to ignore completed enquiries and civil court adjudications.
- Hence, the contempt proceedings were dropped and the rule was discharged.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Alleged deliberate and intentional disobedience of court order dated 30.07.2024 requiring registration of FIR where a complaint reflects commission of cognizable offence.
Respondent (Police/State):
- Submitted compliance affidavit detailing previous enquiries already held on the same subject matter, with all reports annexed.
- Pointed out that civil suits on identical facts had been dismissed due to non-pursuit.
- Argued that fresh enquiry or FIR on the same facts would be impermissible per standing orders of DGP.
- Asserted that the petitioner had no cause of action, as she had not established any change in title to the property in question.
Factual Background
The case arose from a property dispute. The petitioner sought contempt action against police authorities, alleging non-registration of an FIR despite a High Court order directing the registration of FIRs for cognizable offences. Police submitted evidence of earlier enquiries and attached detailed reports. The dispute over a property had previously led the petitioner’s mother-in-law to file two civil suits, both of which were dismissed in default. The petitioner later filed fresh complaints on the same matter.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed the requirements under law as interpreted in Lalita Kumari regarding compulsory registration of FIR for cognizable offences.
- Provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 were raised in the original order but did not impact the contempt determination here.
- The Police relied upon internal standing orders (DGP, Punjab) that barred multiple enquiries/FIRs on the same cause of action.
- The Court did not interpret any statutory provision expansively or narrowly but followed established precedent regarding FIR registration.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were delivered; the judgment represents a single judge’s decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations were set in this case. Procedure followed standard processes for contempt and compliance affidavit evaluation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms and applies the law laid down in Lalita Kumari regarding mandatory registration of FIRs, clarifying its application in the context of prior enquiries and dismissed civil actions.