Balveer Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-36083 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 06, 2016 Balveer Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.P.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Punjab and other respondents for directing respondents No.2 to 4 to arrest the respondents No.5 to 8, who were roaming freely in area despite the FIR No.142 dated 08.09.2016 for offence under Section 306 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that investigation is not being conducted fairly and property and respondents No.5 to 8 have not been arrested so far. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

First of all, I find that it is settled law that the Court cannot interfere in the investigation and cannot direct the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation in a particular way. Therefore, no direction can be given to the Investigating Officer to arrest respondents No.5 to 8. As regarding the grievance that investigation is not being conducted fairly and Vineet Gulati 2016.10.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-36083 of 2016 -2properly, 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 petition 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 above-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. October 06, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.10.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh