Court declines Special Investigation Team and FIR registration in writ petition but mandates thorough inquiry by senior officer outside concerned police district, verification of vehicle registration, preservation of CCTV evidence, and interim armed security for petitioner.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Advocate Manish Modi seeking police protection, an independent inquiry, preservation of electronic evidence, and registration of a First Information Report (FIR) over allegations of surveillance and intimidation allegedly linked to cases involving police officials.
The petitioner, practicing in Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, claimed that a white Mahindra Scorpio vehicle with suspicious registration numbers followed him and was stationed near his residence on July 26, 2026. The vehicle reportedly carried four masked individuals, one of whom appeared to be armed, allegedly to intimidate him because he represented clients in cases against officials of Khanna Police and the CIA Staff, Khanna.
Manish Modi's petition sought multiple reliefs including police protection for himself and his family, constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) unconnected with the local police, verification of suspicious vehicle registration numbers, preservation of CCTV footage, and registration of an FIR if a cognizable offense was found.
The Court carefully examined the submissions and the replies filed by police authorities. The police stated that no direct threat or criminal case was substantiated and that a Security Assessment Committee had found no immediate threat to the petitioner. The Committee had advised regular police patrolling near the petitioner's residence and provided emergency helpline numbers.
The Court noted that the power to transfer investigation or constitute an SIT must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Since no FIR had been registered and the allegations required proper inquiry, the Court declined the constitution of an SIT. The Court further observed that the petitioner's material, including online searches and photographs, were inconclusive and required official verification.
Regarding the registration of an FIR, the Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum for such a direction. Instead, the petitioner was advised to avail the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allows aggrieved persons to approach the Magistrate for non-registration of FIR.
However, the Court found that the inquiry conducted by the local police was not satisfactory or impartial. It highlighted that the suspicious vehicle's registration numbers had not been verified with the registering authority, and the petitioner's offer to produce original CCTV footage and photographs had not been considered. Moreover, the inquiry report was based on inputs from the very police staff against whom allegations were made.
To ensure a fair and transparent investigation, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to entrust the inquiry to a senior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, posted outside Police District Khanna and unconnected with the CIA Staff, Khanna. This officer was to verify vehicle registration particulars officially, collect and preserve CCTV recordings and other electronic evidence, and complete the inquiry within six weeks. If cognizable offenses were found, the police were to proceed according to law, keeping in view the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Recognizing the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court ordered interim police protection. It directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, to provide at least one armed police official to accompany the petitioner and continue patrolling near his residence until a fresh threat assessment was made post-inquiry. The petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing before any decision on withdrawal of security.
The judgment emphasized that these directions do not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations or affect the ongoing cases involving the petitioner's clients.
This decision underscores the Court's balanced approach in safeguarding fundamental rights of advocates while upholding procedural propriety and the rule of law in criminal investigations.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition by Advocate seeking police protection, independent inquiry, preservation of CCTV/electronic evidence and registration of FIR on allegations of surveillance and intimidation allegedly linked to cases conducted against police officials - High Court declined constitution of Special Investigation Team and declined direction for registration of FIR in writ jurisdiction - However, finding inquiry unsatisfactory, directed fresh inquiry by senior officer posted outside concerned police district, verification of vehicle registration numbers, collection/preservation of CCTV and electronic record, and granted interim police security to petitioner till fresh threat assessment.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 175(3), Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Manish Modi v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011117
