CRWP-2291-2022

-1-

108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRWP-2291-2022

Date of decision : 23.03.2022

Sukhdarshan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a Criminal Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India, in which two fold prayers are ostensibly made.

Primary prayer which has been made in the petition is to register criminal

case on the basis of complaint dated 18.12.2021. Secondary prayer which

has been made is for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner.

This Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2021 passed in CRM-M-

43573-2021, after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2008(2) SCC 409

and M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, Criminal

Appeal No.102 of 2011, decided on 20.03.2020, had held that the petition

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIRs is not

PAWAN KUMAR

2022.03.25 18:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRWP-2291-2022

-2-

maintainable. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

“Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled Sakiri Vasu

Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2008(2) SCC 409,

has held as under:-

“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 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?

PAWAN KUMAR

2022.03.25 18:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRWP-2291-2022

-3-

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.”

A perusal of the abovesai