Dr. Sumeet Sofat V. Insp. Balwinder Kaur and others

COCP/5448/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a contempt petition filed by Dr. Sumeet Sofat against Inspector Balwinder Kaur and others, alleging non-compliance with a previous court order regarding the registration of FIRs for cognizable offenses. The original order directed the State of Punjab to ensure FIRs are registered when complaints of cognizable offenses are made, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari's case. The respondents submitted a reply detailing the actions taken in compliance with this order, including a preliminary inquiry into allegations of misconduct by Income Tax officials during a raid. The court found that the respondents had complied with the order, leading to the dismissal of the contempt petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842717 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Lalita Kumari's case
• Laws Referred To: Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Income Tax Act, 1961, IT Act, BNSS
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A P KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVNEET JOSHI
• Keywords: Cognizable offence; Contempt petition; FIR registration; Income Tax raid; Preliminary Inquiry; Privacy violation
• Section: 131; 175(3)

Judgement Text

"COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -1- 234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Dr. Sumeet Sofat ......Petitioner Vs. Insp. Balwinder Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Dr. Sumeet Sofat, petitioner in person (through VC). Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.P.Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2066-2018, whereby following directions were issued:- 8. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the following directions:- i) State of Punjab is directed to ensure that whenever a complaint is made which reflects commission of cognizable offence, an FIR ought to be registered in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari’s case (supra). ii) The provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 be followed in its letter and spirit. Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -2- 2. In compliance of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2066-2018, short reply by way of affidavit dated 05.12.2025 of Inspector Amritpal Sharma, SHO, Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana, along with Annexures R-1/1 to R1/4, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 before the Registry. The same is taken on record. The relevant extract of the said reply is reproduced as under:- “4. That a written complaint was submitted by Dr. Amit Sofat (brother of the petitioner), at Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana and the same was assigned Diary No. 116- 5D dated 22/12/2024 wherein he sought registration of a Criminal Case/FIR against 21 named Income Tax officers and accompanying panch witnesses invoved in the raid/search operation at his premises, and the allegations made in the said complaint are mentioned hereinbelow: i. That as per that on 18.12.2024 at about 6:00 AM, officials of the Income Tax Department, accompanied by certain private persons, conducted simultaneous searches at his residence situated at Sangat Road, Ludhiana, and at Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital, College Road, Ludhiana, on the basis of allegedly false information. The complainant, stated that the officers entered both premises forcibly, without proper identification, and by scaling the main gate of the residence while threatening the family at gunpoint to open the doors. ii. The complaint further alleged that after committing criminal trespass into the residence and hospital, the officers shut down the CCTV and Wi-Fi systems, confiscated all mobile phones, laptops and computer devices of the complainant and his family, and confined them within the premises. It was stated that the officers accessed and cloned their mobile phones without consent Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -3- and viewed private and intimate photographs of the complainant and his wife, and even transmitted such images to their own devices, thereby violating their right to privacy and committing offences under the IT Act. iii. It was further alleged that the search continued for nearly three days till 20.12.2024, during which the family, including the complainant's elderly parents aged around 84 years, were not permitted timely meals or medication. The complainant alleged that male officers physically frisked his wife while searching for locker keys, and that abusive, obscene and vulgar language was used against female family members, thereby insulting their modesty. iv. The complainant further alleged that on 19.12.2024, when the officers did not find any unaccounted cash, certain officers subjected him to torture, forcibly taking him into the bathroom, filling a tub with cold water and repeatedly submerging his head under water to compel him to disclose the location of locker keys. He claimed that he almost drowned and that his head was brought out only when he stopped breathing. Under this alleged coercion, he handed over locker keys. v. Thereafter, allegedly during searches of two bank lockers at Union Bank and IDBI Bank, College Road, Ludhiana, the officers allegedly mishandled him, threatened him with false implication under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and forced him to change his written objections regarding valuation of jewellery. It was further alleged that the sealed jewellery box was taken out of the bank premises in his absence, the seals were tampered with, and part of the jewellery was removed, which, according to him, is visible in the CCTV footage of the bank. He alleged that despite daytime-only mandate for searches, the search at IDBI Bank illegally continued into the night. vi. The complainant further alleged that on 20.12.2024, he was compelled to sign the final Search Report/Panchnama under threat, and that Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -4- the officers forcibly obtained false confessions from him and his accountant alleging that he charged 4-8 lakhs from every infertile couple, possessed benami properties, and undervalued land transactions, all of which he asserts were fabricated under coercion. vii. According to the complaint, the collective acts of the officials and private persons amounted to serious cognizable offences such as armed robbery, dacoity, extortion, criminal trespass for extortion, wrongful confinement, assault, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, outraging the modesty of women, tampering with evidence, unauthorised access and transmission of private data, and offences under the BNS, BNSS and Information Technology Act. The complainant therefore sought registration of a criminal case and action against 21 named Income Tax officers and accompanying panch witnesses involved in the raid. 5. That it is pertinent to mention that as the allegations levelled in the aforesaid complaint pertained to the conduct of Income Tax officials acting in discharge of their official duties during a search/raid conducted at the premises of the complainant; hence, the matter required careful scrutiny and verification and accordingly, a preliminary inquiry was initiated by the Incharge, Police Post Ghumar Mandi, Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana. During the said inquiry, the statement of the complainant, Dr. Amit Sofat, was duly recorded. Thereafter, considering that several allegations pertained to alleged forcible signatures, tampering with seals, manipulation of records and other acts said to have occurred during Income Tax search proceedings, the Incharge formally sought the relevant documents and search-related records from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ludhiana. In response, the Income Tax Department conveyed in writing that a investigation under the Income Tax Act, 1961 was already in progress against the complainant, that the documents and records requested formed part of an ongoing privileged investigation, and that disclosure of the same at this stage would prejudice and hamper the statutory proceedings being undertaken under the IT Act. Furthermore, during the course of the preliminary Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -5- inquiry, no independent material or corroborative evidence came forth to substantiate the remaining allegations levelled by the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, the Incharge Police Post recommended that the representation/complaint be filed, and on the basis of the said recommendation, the deponent approved the same and the complaint was accordingly ordered to be filed. 6. That a separate written complaint was submitted by Gagandeep Kaur, at the Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana, and the same was assigned No. 119-5/D dated 25.12.2024 wherein she sought registration of a Criminal Case/FIR against income tax officials namely Deepinder Kaur (DDIT), Sunil Airi (ITO), Harkesh Meena (Inspector), Somveer Khatkar (Inspector), Birender Kumar (Inspector), Ashish (TA), Kuldeep Sharma (MTS), Ashish Kumar (Panch/Witness-1), Suraj Thakur (Panch/Witness-2), and 8-10 unknown persons including armed gunmen. and the allegations leveled in the said complaint are mentioned hereinbelow: i. That on 18.12.2024 at about 6:00 AM, she and her husband (Petitioner i.e. Dr. Sumeet Sofat), while sleeping on the first floor of their residence, were subjected to an illegal, forcible and violent raid by officials of the Income Tax Department along with 15-20 unknown persons, including armed gunmen in army-type uniforms, without disclosing their identity. It was alleged that the accused persons continuously rang the doorbells, and upon being questioned by her, threatened her at gunpoint to open the gate or face being shot. As the husband of the complainant was involved in litigation with land-grabbers and three FIRs had been recently registered against such persons, she and her husband, upon seeing 15-20 armed men on CCTV, believed that criminals had come to harm them, leading to panic. ii. It was further alleged that the raiding team thereafter jumped over the main gate, attempted to forcibly break the lobby door and eventually broke open the drawing room door, all of which stands recorded in the complainant's CCTV footage. The Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -6- complainant stated that both she and her husband repeatedly sought identification, but the raiding persons did not identify themselves and continued to batter the locked bedroom door. During this time, the husband of the complainant secured his two minor children inside the attached bathroom while she physically resisted the accused from breaking open the bedroom door. The accused allegedly broke the latch and forced the door open, causing injury to the complainant when the door handle hit her stomach. Only at this stage did one officer identify herself as belonging to the Income Tax Department. She alleged that the officers accused them of having \"formatted phones and hidden cash/jewellery,\" and manhandled them. Allegedly the complainant developed lower abdominal pain and spotting, but she was neither allowed rest nor her medication. iii. It was alleged that the search continued until about 6:00 PM and that the officers repeatedly threatened the complainant and her husband to disclose the location of cash, jewellery and bullion, abused them in filthy language, physically frisked the complainant several times through male officers, searched their minor children's school bags, and compelled the complainant to accompany them while dropping and collecting the children from school, during which the children were frisked again. It was further alleged that both husband and wife were kept in custody within their home, all mobile phones and laptops were seized and cloned without consent, and intimate private photographs were accessed and transmitted, violating their privacy and modesty and attracting sections 66(E) and 67 of the IT Act. iv. It was further stated that the search proceeded in premises, without recording mandatory audio- video footage as required under BNSS, and that the officers fabricated summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by showing the residence as a \"camp office,\" even though both husband and wife were already present throughout the day. It was alleged that no neighbours or respectables were associated as independent witnesses, and instead Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -7- unknown persons, likely taxi drivers accompanying Income Tax officers, were made panch witnesses. The complainant further alleged that his legal rights, including the right against self- incrimination, were violated, and that he and his wife were compelled to make statements under coercion. v. She further alleged that after an extensive 12-hour search, nothing incriminating was recovered except 11,000 in cash and old scrap vehicles, and that no gold, diamonds, bullion or undisclosed assets were found. He further allegedly continued to suffer bleeding attributable to the injuries sustained during the raid, and on 25.12.2024 she suffered a miscarriage, which he attributed to the assault and misconduct of the male officers who physically frisked and manhandled her in absence of any female officer, as the only female officer present initially had allegedly left. vi. The complainant named the following officers and persons as accused in the complaint: Deepinder Kaur (DDIT), Sunil Airi (ITO), Harkesh Meena (Inspector, Somveer Khatkar (Inspector), Birender Kumar (Inspector), Ashish (TA), Kuldeep Sharma (MTS), Ashish Kumar (Panch/Witness-1), Suraj Thakur (Panch/Witness-2), and 8-10 unknown persons including armed gunmen. 7. That since the allegations contained in the aforesaid complaint were also directed against Income Tax officials in relation to acts alleged to have been committed during a search/raid, the matter required careful scrutiny and verification. Accordingly, a preliminary inquiry was undertaken by the Incharge, Police Post Ghumar Mandi, Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana. 8. That during the course of the said inquiry, it came to light that Gagandeep Kaur (the complainant) had already filed a private complaint before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on the same set of allegations, which had been registered as CRM-771 of 2025. It further transpired that in those proceedings, the investigating agency had already submitted its report before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and thereafter, vide order Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -8- dated 18.09.2025, the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner himself, who had appeared on behalf of Gagandeep Kaur by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/1. 9. That in light of the existence and withdrawal of parallel proceedings on identical facts, and upon consideration of the material gathered during the preliminary inquiry, the Incharge, Police Post recommended that no further action was required on the said complaint; consequently, the same was ordered to be filed. 10. That it is pertinent to mention that Dr. Amit Sofat had filed three separate applications under Section 175(3) BNSS before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana, seeking registration of an FIR on the basis of the very same allegations contained in his aforementioned written complaint. The first application, CRM-43-2025, was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2025 (Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/2). The revision filed against the said order, CRR-309-2025, was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide detailed order dated 03.09.2025 (Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/3). The second application, CRM-1507-2025, met with the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 29.10.2025 (Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/4). Thus, multiple attempts by the complainant to seek an order for registration of FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS on the basis of the aforesaid allegations were considered and rejected by the competent Courts of law. 11. That it is further relevant to submit that Gagandeep Kaur has also filed an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before the Ld. JMIC, Ludhiana, seeking registration of an FIR on the basis of the allegations levelled in the aforesaid complaint submitted by her. The said application stands registered as CRM-1271-2025 and is presently pending adjudication before the Ld. Court, with the next date of hearing fixed as 19.12.2025. 12. That it is respectfully submitted that Annexure P-6, as appended by the petitioner in the present contempt petition, was never submitted before Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana. No such document was ever Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -9- received, diarized, or processed at the said Police Station. Instead, a separate complaint on similar allegations had been submitted by Gagandeep Kaur (alleged wife of the petitioner) and the same was assigned No. 119-5/D dated 25.12.2024, which alone formed the basis of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Incharge, Police Post Ghumar Mandi. 13. That it is submitted that the allegations raised in the said aforementioned complaints pertained entirely to the manner and modality of a search and seizure operation conducted by Income Tax officials under statutory authority, involving questions of forced entry, procedural deviations, seized articles, and alleged misconduct during an official raid. These assertions, by their very nature, presented a complex and disputed factual matrix, the truthfulness of which could not be ascertained without verification of contemporaneous records and correspondence from the Income Tax Department itself. In such circumstances, the information did not, at the outset, clearly or unequivocally disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore a preliminary inquiry is permissible in cases involving uncertain, doubtful or complex facts requiring verification. The present matter squarely fell within this category. Accordingly, the initiation and completion of a preliminary inquiry in the aforesaid complaints was the legally mandated course of action. Hence, there is no deviation or disobedience of the directions issued by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 requiring adherence to the law in Lalita Kumari, and the action of the answering respondent is in complete conformity with the said mandate.” 3. A perusal of the reply shows that order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2066-2018 has been duly complied with. 4. In view of the above, since order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2066-2018, has been complied with, therefore, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged. Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-5448-2025 (O&M) -10- 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 23.02.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.27 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "