Petitioner filed Section 482 CrPC petition for investigation into fraud. Court held no interference needed as alternative remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC were available.
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.
Crl.Misc.No.M-5401 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-5401 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.02.2011
Sukhchain Singh
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.
...Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Present: Mr.Gaurave Bhayyia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for directions to respondent No.2 to investigate the matter and take appropriate action against the private respondents for having committed fraud with the petitioner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392, wherein, it is held that 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. Para 27 and 28 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure
Crl.Misc.No.M-5401 of 2011
2
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 discharge the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.PC 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.PC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC.
In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to any other alternative remedy as available to him in accordance with law.
Disposed off.
(Nirmaljit Kaur)
21.02.2011 Judge rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC petition for investigation into fraud is maintainable when alternative remedies exist under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and othersReferred¶14
2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhchain Singh
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
