Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlochan Singh Alias Tarlochan Lal And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 March, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-8556 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:27.3.2009
Tarlochan Singh alias Tarlochan Lal and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed for seeking directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to register a criminal case against respondents No.4 to 9 for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 324, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short).
It is submitted that the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 9 are residents of same village and are neighbours. The daughter of respondents No.6 and 7, namely, Ranjana solemnized her marriage against the wishes of her parents (respondents No.6 and 7) with the boy of her choice. After the marriage of Ranjana, respondents No.4 to 9 had a bad eye on the family of the petitioner. On 27.7.2008, when petitioner No.2 Sunita Devi was going to the house of petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh then Balwinder Kumar (respondent No.4), the brother of Ranjana, who was present outside the house of Maro (respondent No.5) stopped her (petitioner Cr. Misc. No.M-8556/2009 [2] No.2) way. On the asking of Sunita Devi (petitioner No.2) he told her that her family members had helped Ranjana to run away from home and now they would not allow them to live peacefully. On this respondent No.4 Balwinder Kumar caught hold of the arm of Sunita Devi (petitioner No.2) and tried to pull her in the house. On raising hue and cry, petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh along with his parents came at the spot and rescued Sunita Devi (petitioner No.2) from Balwinder Kumar (respondent No.4). In the meantime, respondents No.5 to 9 also came there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to the petitioners. The petitioner was medico-legally examined and four injuries with sharp edged weapon were found on the person of Tarlochan Singh (petitioner No.1). These were kept under observation. Besides, one injury was found with sharp edged weapon on the person of Sunita Devi (petitioner No.2) which has also been kept under observation. It is submitted that despite the occurrence and the injuries, no FIR is being registered. The petitioner No.2 has also submitted representation dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure-P.2) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.2), however, despite that there has been inaction on the part of the Police and rather, FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered against the petitioners.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that, in case, there is inaction by the Police in not registering a FIR, the proper remedy in such a case are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. which are to be adopted and followed.
In Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC) it was observed that the correct position in law is Cr. Misc. No.M-8556/2009 [3] that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to the notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials failed to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the Police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C are to be adopted and followed.
In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC) it was observed by the Supreme Court that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases.
Therefore, in the present case, the petitioners have their remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is any inaction on the part of the Police in not registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court to register a FIR.
Cr. Misc. No.M-8556/2009 [4] In the circumstances, the petitioners if so advised, may avail their other remedies as available to them in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. March 27, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*