Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pci Pest Control Private Limited vs Senior Superintendent Of Police, ... on 28 February, 2022

Author: Manoj Bajaj

Bench: Manoj Bajaj

CRM-M-1547-2022 (O&M)                                          -1-


113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                 AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-1547-2022 (O&M)
                                 Date of decision-28.02.2022

PCI Pest Control Pvt. Ltd.
                                             ...Petitioner

                         Vs.

Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh and others
                                     ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:   Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

           ***

MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking issuance of directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to lodge FIR and conduct fair and impartial inquiry in complaint dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) moved by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the private respondent is an Ex-employee of the petitioner/company, who has been illegally receiving the money from the other employees and the existing employees of the company are seeking reimbursement of the said amount from the petitioner/company. He submits that the petitioner has given a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T.Chandigarh on 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), but no action has been taken upon the same, therefore, the directions be issued for registration 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 21:39:33 ::: CRM-M-1547-2022 (O&M) -2- of the case and investigation.

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed that neither any money was demanded by respondent No.3 from the petitioner nor any amount has been reimbursed to the existing employees, which was allegedly paid to respondent No.3. Apparently, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has suffered any wrongful loss pursuant to the alleged act/omission on the part of respondent No.3, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, particularly when the victim can avail an alternative remedy.

Dismissed.



                                                  (MANOJ BAJAJ)
                                                      JUDGE
28.02.2022
vanita
             Whether speaking/reasoned :              Yes   No
             Whether Reportable :                     Yes   No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 21:39:33 :::