The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to register an FIR, relying on Sakiri Vasu to hold that alternative remedies under Sections 154, 156, and 36 Cr.P.C. are available.
Petition for directions to register FIR against respondents directed police to initiate proceedings dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-24660 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M- No.24660 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2010
Gurpartap Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sabina, J.
Gurpartap Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 to initiate legal and criminal proceedings under relevant provisions of IPC against respondent No. 4 and 5.
It has been held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs.State of
U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392 as under:-
“24. In view of the above mentioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be
Criminal Misc. No. M-24660 of 2010 (O&M)
2
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
25.We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when some one 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).
Criminal Misc. No. M-24660 of 2010 (O&M)
3
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 ?”
The petitioner is seeking a direction for registration of the FIR against respondents No. 4 and 5. In view of the decision of Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu's case(supra), no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge
August 24,2010
arya
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct FIR registration when alternative remedies exist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs.State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶13
2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurpartap Singh
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
