Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29816-2022 Decided on : 12.01.2023 Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Jasminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanish Girdhar, AAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for issuance of directions to official respondents for registration of FIR in against the persons mentioned in complaints dated 20.02.2020 and 07.03.2020 (Annexures P-1 and P-3 respectively). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were certain disputes relating to the tenancy between the petitioner and one Jatinder Singh (landlord), due to which eviction petition had been filed by the said Jatinder Singh. The eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and eviction of the petitioner was ordered. During the execution of said order, Jatinder Singh along with others forcibly took the possession of the concerned property. Learned counsel further submits that despite complaints dated 20.02.2020 and 07.03.

2020 (Annexures P-1 and P-3 respectively) having been given to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar no no FIR till date stands registered against one Jatinder Singh. A prayer has therefore been made to issue directions to the official respondents to register FIR under the relevant Sections of IPC.

SONIA BURA 2023.01.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-29816-2022 -2Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Firstly, the said Jatinder Singh has not been impleaded in the present petition being a necessary party. Be that as it may, this court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions as prayed for, for the registration of FIR because in case the petitioner is aggrieved on account of any inaction on the part of the official respondents, instead of approaching this court directly, he would be well advised to avail of the alternative remedies available to him under the provisions of law in the light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others 2008 (2) SCC 409.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 12.01.2023 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2023.01.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document