Poonam Singla v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.16837 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 Poonam Singla ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNSS, 2023, for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to conduct impartial inquiry against the private persons as the official respondents are not taking any action. Further prayer has been made to decide the complaint dated 03.03.2025 filed by the petitioner within a stipulated time.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that on account of a theft in the house of the petitioner's, she approached the jurisdiction police authorities and submitted a complaint on 21.02.2025, however, the matter was not investigated. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, S.A.S. Nagar and Director General of Police, Punjab, through online complaints and in response thereto, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zirakpur

disclosed that the investigation is already handed over to the concerned police officials and the same is under process. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner again approached the higher police authorities through online complaint and submitted representation dated 03.03.2025 before Senior Superintendent of Police, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), however, till date no action has been taken. He further submits that the jurisdictional police authorities are not conducting the investigation properly and they failed to perform their statutory duty.

3.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 4.

A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that the Magistrate has been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Discouraging the practice of approaching the High Court for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper investigation, Justice Markandey Katju made the following observations: "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 Criminal Procedure Code 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) Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

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."

5.

This ratio was reiterated in the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhange and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728, Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi 2007(4) R.C.R(Criminal) 115. 6.

The High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can issue directions for prompt and proper investigation, however, it would be out of bounds to instruct the investigation to be completed in a certain time frame, in alignment with the opinion expressed by it. The Courts must be conscious of its influence and not exercise the same in an unwarranted fashion as it may prejudice the conclusion of the investigating agency, straying further away from achieving the overarching goal of justice.

7.

Further, even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped to deal with such type of matters, learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this Court directly instead of the concerned jurisdictional Court by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 8.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to issue any such direction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.03.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No