Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Sumeet Sofat vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 April, 2010
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Nirmaljit Kaur
CRM No. M 11282 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 11282 of 2010
Date of decision: 21.04.2010
Dr. Sumeet Sofat ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. RS Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioner
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
The prayer made in the petition reads as under :-
" For taking action against respondents No. 3 and 4 as per law or in the alternative this Court may direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to initiate departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings against respondents No. 3 and 4 as per the complaint dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure P-18) for acting contrary to letter and spirit of orders passed by this Court in CRM No. 40730 M of 2007 and CRM No. M 24322 of 2008;
and for criminally conniving with the private respondents to kill/eliminate the petitioner by making him defenceless, firstly, by now recommending Arms Licence to him with absolutely mala fide intentions and secondly by CRM No. M 11282 of 2010 2 illegally withdrawing the police security provided to petitioner without holding any enquiry into threat perception to the petitioner in order to wilfully, deliberately and intentionally jeopardise the life and liberty of the petitioner at the private respondents on four separate occasions."
The petitioner had earlier filed CRM No. M 40730 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of on 26.07.2007 with the following orders:-
"This petition is disposed of with the observation that let respondent No. 3 to 5 i.e. SSP, Ludhiana, SP, City II, Ludhiana and SHO, Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana look into the matter and see that the life and liberty of the petitioners is not unnecessarily jeopardised by respondents No. 6 and 7."
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition i.e. COCP No. 339 of 2008 on the ground that the orders passed by this Court had not been complied with. Accordingly, the said contempt petition was disposed of with the following orders:-
"Reply affidavit filed by respondents has been perused. There appears to be sufficient compliance with directions issued by this court. No further actin is required to be taken in these contempt proceedings and the same are accordingly disposed of."
Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner moved CRM No. M 24322 of 2008 with the following prayers which are evident from para 11 of the petition itself :-
"a) For police help for starting construction at his property;
and CRM No. M 11282 of 2010 3
b) For registration of FIR against the private respondents and others for committing criminal trespass and armed dacoity in the night of 31.08.2008.
The aforesaid petition was disposed of on 18.09.2008 with the following orders:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be content if a direction is issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (City) to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to protect life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of respondents No. 5 and 6.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mrs. Manjari Nehri, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State.
The petition shall stand disposed of according, with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (City) to look into the grievance of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the petitioner shall have the similar constitutional protection which is available to all the citizens of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He yet filed another contempt petition i.e. COCP No.1475 of 2008 on the ground that respondent No. 3 did not lodge the FIR and did not protect the life and liberty of the petitioner. The same was disposed of on 11.11.2008 by this Court by passing following orders:-
"It has been stated on behalf of respondents that pursuant to directions passed by this Court on 26.07.2007, two gunmen have been provided to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that these gunmen were provided merely on obsevation of this Court or the respondents-police have felt any necessity of providing security to petitioner. SSP Ludhiana will hold an enquiry and if on such enquiry, he CRM No. M 11282 of 2010 4 finds that there is any security threat to petitioner, he may continue with the security cover. However, if no such security threat is there, he is at liberty to withdraw the security.
Disposed of."
The petitioner has now filed the present petition stating that his representation (P-18) is still pending with the DGP, Punjab but the same has not been decided.
A perusal of the representation (P-18) shows that the only prayer made therein is that the matter be enquired into personally and then institute a criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Code of Procedure reads as under:-
"Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned."
While interpreting the said Section, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported as (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 held as under:-
"17 . In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.CRM No. M 11282 of 2010 5
26. 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?"
Similarly, in the facts of the present case, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved or is of the opinion that any criminal offence is made out against the respondents, he is at liberty to file a criminal complaint or avail of alternative remedy in accordance with law.
With respect to the threat perceptions, this Court has already passed various orders, including order dated 11.11.2008, quoted above. No fresh order is required to be passed.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 21.04.2010 mohan