Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Thakran vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 November, 2017
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-24343 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 14, 2017
Sunita Thakran
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.K.Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Haryana and other respondents for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to register FIR against respondents No.4 to 12 and investigation of the case be got conducted as per law by any independent agency etc. and for taking appropriate action against respondents No.4 to 12 after arresting them.
Notice was issued to respondents No.1 to 3. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition. Reply was also filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
In the reply filed by the State on behalf of respondents No.1 to 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:06:36 ::: CRM No.M-24343 of 2013 -2- 3, it is stated that the application Annexure P-1 dated 20.04.2013 and other applications filed by the petitioner were got enquired through ASI Sulender and during the course of enquiry, he recorded statements of relevant persons. Said ASI came to know that FIR No.375 dated 10.10.2012 under Sections 147, 149, 452, 506 and 427 IPC has been registered against the husband of the petitioner on the complaint filed by respondent No.6 and FIR No.311 dated 03.08.2008 under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 506 IPC was also found to be registered against the husband of the petitioner. It is further stated in the reply that during the course of enquiry, said ASI came to the conclusion that Satpal Thakran got made a complaint through his wife Sunita Thakran, otherwise, the allegations of the complaint have not found to be substantiated and no cognizable offence was made out. The SHO, Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon and the then ACP, Sadar, Gurgaon, corroborated the version of ASI Sulender and recommended to file the complaint. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Gurgaon, filed the said complaint after satisfaction with the enquiry.
In view of the reply filed by the State, the representation/application has already been enquired into and has already been filed. The petitioner has also filed this petition for registration of the FIR.
It is settled proposition of law that when the alternative remedies are available, then the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained for the registration of FIR in routine manner. The petitioner is mainly claiming the relief that a criminal case be registered against respondents No.4 to 12. The petitioner has the remedy to approach learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the above-said relief.
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:06:37 ::: CRM No.M-24343 of 2013 -3- The petitioner has also alternative remedy to file criminal complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 392 has held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be entertained in routine and it is held as under:-
"11. In this connection we would like to state 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 yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
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.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.
25. 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 investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:06:37 ::: CRM No.M-24343 of 2013 -4- 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 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
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?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."
The law laid down in above judgment has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal and others, 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 751.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:06:37 ::: CRM No.M-24343 of 2013 -5- As the petitioner has alternative remedies as stated in the above-said case, especially to approach the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, this petition cannot be entertained and the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to avail alternative remedies.
November 14, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:06:37 :::