High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10840/2016disposed of

Rati Ram v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2016-03-30Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-10840 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: March 30, 2016 Rati Ram

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Haryana and other respondents for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 for conducting fair and expeditious investigation of case FIR No.0609 dated 11.09.2015 under Sections 34, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat and handing over the investigation to some independent agency like Crime Branch. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on one point that investigation should be conducted fairly and impartially and he did not press other relief sought in the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have

CRM No.M-10840 of 2016 -2gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that investigation is not being conducted fairly and properly. As regarding this grievance that investigation is not being conducted fairly and properly, the petitioner has the remedy to approach Illaqa Magistrate, who has ample powers to supervise and even monitor the investigation. 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 petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be entertained in routine and it is held as under:-

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 v. V. Engammal and others, 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 751. As the petitioner has alternative remedies as stated in the

CRM No.M-10840 of 2016 -3above-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.

March 30, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE