Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 November, 2018
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48759 of 2018.
Decided on:- November 02, 2018.
Rajinder.
.........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
*****
Present:- Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against private respondents No.4 and 5, who have committed an offence under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondents No.4 and 5 have played a fraud upon the petitioner, but the police is not taking any action against them despite various representations made by the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Versus State of U.P. and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held as under:
"We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2018 01:30:12 ::: CRM-M-48759 of 2018 -2- investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3)and Section 36Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?"
Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sugesan Transport Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Police 2016(5) CTC 577 and K. Raghupathy Versus The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai and another 2017 (3) MLJ (Criminal) 449.
In the present case, prayer made by the petitioner is nothing but for issuance of a direction to the official respondents for registration of an F.I.R. against private respondents No.4 and 5. However, in view of the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu's case 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2018 01:30:12 ::: CRM-M-48759 of 2018 -3- (supra), Sujesan Transport Private Limited's case (supra) and K. Raghupathy's case (supra), it is apparent that no such direction can be issued by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the efficacious remedy is already available to the petitioner for the relief claimed in this petition.
Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
November 02, 2018 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2018 01:30:12 :::