Dismissed

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2012CRM-M/29806/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court dismissed the petitioner's plea for transferring investigation to CBI or registering a cross version, citing Sakiri Vasu and emphasizing prima facie jurisdiction with alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request for transfer of investigation and registration of cross version was refused. Petition dismissed.

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-29806 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-29806 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2012.

Gurjit Singh

........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking directions to hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other agency to get the matter investigated in FIR No. 171 dated 12.8.2012 under Section 307, 452, 221, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Act' for short), registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar (Rural) (Annexure P/1) and to register the case against the complainant party under Section 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Act.

¶14

It has been held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu

¶15

vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392 as

¶16

under:-

¶17

“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

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-29806 of 2012 (O&M) -2 -

¶19

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).

¶20

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

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M-29806 of 2012 (O&M) -3 -

¶22

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 ?”

¶23

By way of the present petition, petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for registration of his cross version. The said relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of Sakiri Vasu's case (supra).

¶24

No ground for interference is made out.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶27

November 15, 2012 Gurpreet

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Sham Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vinod and Others Vs Jaibir and Another

Patram Vs State of Haryana

Halwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Inder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab