Dismissed

Modan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2010CRM-M/13942/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Section 482 Cr.P.C. direction for FIR registration. Court dismissed petition holding Illaqa Magistrate remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are more efficacious, citing Supreme Court precedents discouraging High Court intervention when alternatives exist.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to approach Illaqa Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Modan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-13942 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-13942 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2010

Modan Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to take action against respondent nos.4 to 14 and register FIR against them on the basis of his complaint, Annexure P2.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The petitioner has more efficacious remedy to approach the learned Illaqa Magistrate for appropriate relief. Illaqa Magistrate has power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIR if deemed appropriate or in other words, if a sufficient ground is made out for the same. In other eventuality, the Illaqa Magistrate may himself proceed to inquire into the complaint and pass appropriate order. Thus, remedy before the Illaqa Magistrate is more efficacious because if he finds sufficient cause for ordering registration of FIR, he would pass the order immediately on presentation of complaint but the instant petition would take several months before appropriate direction for registration of FIR is passed, even if a case is made out for the same. Thus, it is apparent that the remedy before the Magistrate is more efficacious.

¶16

In fact if FIR is not registered by the Police on complaint of cognizable offence being made to the police, the proper remedy to be adopted by the complainant is as set out in Section 190 read with Section

¶17

-2-

¶18

Crl.M.No.M-13942 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

200 Cr.P.C. by filing a complaint before IIlaqa Magistrate. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, 2007(3) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 2269.

¶20

The aforesaid conclusion is further re-enforced by following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2007(5) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 3910:-

¶21

“24. In view of the abovementioned 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 necessary for ensuring a proper registration 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.

¶22

We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone 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 alternative 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).

¶23

If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can

¶24

Crl.M.No.M-13942 of 2010 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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?

¶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.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to appropriate remedy before Illaqa Magistrate, who shall be at liberty to pass any appropriate order, whatever deemed appropriate.

¶29

12.5.2010 meenu

¶30

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Modan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kunti & Os Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rewati Raman and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harender Dhillon & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurbachan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.