Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
BAKSHISH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondents
LPA 574 of 2016
Decided On : 10-04-2017
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Dispute
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : .
Headnote
Alternative Remedy - Property Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 154, Section 156, Section 190, Section 197 - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure related to the initiation of a criminal case, investigation, and trial. It emphasized the availability of alternative remedies for a person aggrieved by a criminal act, such as lodging an F.I.R., making a complaint directly in court, or approaching the Magistrate. The court held that the High Court should not normally exercise writ jurisdiction if alternative remedies are available and not availed of by the concerned party.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership of a property and alleged that someone had forged his signature and taken away the title documents. The property was being demolished by a third party, and the authorities failed to take action despite complaints and representations. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court should not normally exercise writ jurisdiction if alternative remedies are available and not availed of by the concerned party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's writ petition should be entertained by the High Court when alternative remedies were available for initiating a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the availability of alternative remedies for a person aggrieved by a criminal act, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
For the Appellant :Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(Crl) No. 2004/2015. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before us.
2. The appeal is brought before this bench by order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 10621/2016, wherein the Supreme Court permitted the appellant to file an intra-court appeal in the form of Letters Patent.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner of the property bearing No.2184/168, Plot No.103, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") and he had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/- against the documents of the said property measuring 90 sq. yards from Ramgarhia Co-operative Bank Ltd, Paharganj, New Delhi. The appellant had already repaid approximately half of the loan amount. Soon thereafter, the appellant received information regarding someone in connivance with the bank officials had forged his signature and taken away the title documents of the said property. An F.I.R. bearing No. 124/2012 was also registered 05.07.2012.
4. Thereafter, the appellant received information that the said property was being demolished by the respondent No. 6, who claimed to have purchased the property from Smt. Rajinder Kaur i.e. wife of the brother of the appellant. The appellant filed two suits in Tis Hazari Court and made various complaints and representations to the Station House Officer, P.S. Keshav Puram and Deputy Commissioner, MCD but they failed to reply to the same.
5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl) No. 2004/2015 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.02.2016 dismissed the petition while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported as (2008) 2 SCC 409 and held as under:-
"'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.’
4. In view of the legal position referred to above and remedies available to the petitioner by filing criminal complaint, no direction is required to be issued by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Vinod Malhotra, learned counsel for the app
