SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Som Nath - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
CRM-M-31904-2021
Decided On : 10-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gurdev Singh Kuka, Advocate for the Appellant

Availability of alternate remedies for grievances related to FIR registration and investigation, and the discouragement of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for such grievances.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Investigation - 154, 156(3) Cr.P.C. - The court held that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as there are alternate remedies available to the petitioner, such as approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court cited the judgments of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, emphasizing that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for grievances related to FIR registration and investigation, and relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedies available.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to investigate the matter related to a gift deed executed by his wife and her subsequent behavior resulting in his eviction from his home.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedies for the petitioner.

Issues: Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and availability of alternate remedies for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of alternate remedies such as approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for grievances related to FIR registration and investigation, as established in the judgments of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki.

Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed, with the petitioner being given the liberty to avail any alternate remedy available to him.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for issuance of necessary and appropriate directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to investigate the matter on the applications moved by the petitioner (Annexures P-2 to P-7).

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is the wife of the petitioner and the said respondent No.4, in order to grab his property, got executed a gift deed of his plot and house in her favour. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the execution of the said gift deed, the behaviour of respondent No.4 towards the petitioner changed suddenly and that respondent No.4, in connivance with respondent No.5, threw out the petitioner from his home. The petitioner had made several representations which have been annexed as Annexures P-2 to P-7 with the present petition.

The complaints/representations (Annexures P-2 to P-5) are almost verbatimly same and have been given to various authorities including the Home Minister, Director General of Police, Haryana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hansi, Hisar, SHO, City Hansi, Hisar. The prayer made in the said representations, which is common in all, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Therefore, it is my request before you that as all this belongs to me, but still they have made me Orphan/Helpless. Kindly action should be taken against them and justice be done with me. So that I can stay at my home and can live my life.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter be investigated and action be taken against respondent Nos.4 and 5.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and is not inclined to interfere in the present case and is of the view that a petition like the present one is not maintainable on account of several alternate remedies available to the petitioner in case the respondent authorities refuse to register an FIR or after registering an FIR do not carry out proper investigation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as (2008) 2 SCC 409 has specifically 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.

XXX---XXX—XXX

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.

XXX----XXXX----XXX

24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top