This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought an order for registration of an FIR. The High Court dismissed it, holding that alternative remedies were available and following the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu.
Petition dismissed as alternative remedies under Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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.
Criminal Misc. No.M-11123 of 2012 (O&M)
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-11123 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.7.2012
Balwant Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of directions to the respondents for registering FIR against the persons mentioned in para No.22 of the petition under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
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
Criminal Misc. No.M-11123 of 2012 (O&M)
2
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 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 relagate 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-11123 of 2012 (O&M)
3
Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can 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 ?”
Since, the petitioners have sought registration of FIR, no ground for interference is made out in view of decision of Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu's case (Supra).
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 17, 2012 anita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requesting registration of an FIR can be entertained when alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. exist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.Followed¶14
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Balwant Singh
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
