The High Court dismissed the petition contending fraud in land dealings. It held that the existence of alternative remedies bars writ jurisdiction, expressly referring to Sakiri Vasu to support the decision to dispose of the matter without judicial interference.
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.
CRM-M-13888 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13888 of 2014
Date of Decision : 24.04.2014
Balbir Singh and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that respondents No. 8 and 9 sold some part of the land on 30.04.2002 representing themselves to be the partners of M/s Mandir Rice Mills, Bushehra and even on 10.05.2005, respondent No. 6 sold some of the land in favour of petitioners, claiming himself to be the proprietor of the firm. Thereafter, respondent No. 6 filed a civil suit challenging the alienation made in the year 2002, which was decreed in his favour on 29.04.2011. The appeal filed by petitioner against that judgment was dismissed. The petitioners have filed RSA No. 4143 of 2013 in this Court.
Jitender kumar 2014.04.26 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-13888 of 2014
-2-
registration of a case against them for which representation dated 16.03.2014 (Annexure P-6) was also sent.
“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. 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
Jitender kumar 2014.04.26 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-13888 of 2014
-3-
remedies?”
April 24, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE
Jitender kumar 2014.04.26 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should admit a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And othersReferred¶4
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And others 2008 (2) SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Balbir Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
R.P. Nagrath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
