Single judge held that a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking direction for investigation is not maintainable when alternative remedies like Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are available.
Petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Magistrate to avail alternative remedies.
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.
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-10234 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 27, 2017
Charanjit Kaur
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Yashpal Marken, Advocate for the petitioner.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Punjab and other respondents for directing respondents No.2 to 5 to carry out investigation in complaint dated 29.06.2016 in fair and transparent manner against respondent No.6 etc..
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
It is settled proposition of law that when the alternative remedies are available, then the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. The petitioner is mainly claiming the relief of direction to official respondents to register FIR against the culprit after investigating the complaint fairly and properly. The petitioner has the remedy to approach learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the above-said Vineet Gulati 2017.03.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy andrelief. The petitioner has also alternative remedy to file criminal complaint. authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-10234 of 2017
-2-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 392 has held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be entertained in routine and it is held as under:-
“11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.
25. 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
Vineet Gulati 2017.03.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-10234 of 2017
-3-
interfere in such matters, and relegate 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).
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 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.”
The law laid down in above judgment has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal and
others, 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 751 .
As the petitioner has alternative remedies as stated in the
above-said case, especially to approach the Judicial Magistrate, therefore,
Vineet Gulati 2017.03.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-10234 of 2017
-4-
this petition cannot be entertained and the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to avail alternative remedies.
| March 27 | , 2017 | (INDERJIT SINGH) |
|---|---|---|
| Vgulati | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes | |
| Whether reportable | No |
Vineet Gulati 2017.03.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entertaining direction for investigation is maintainable when alternative remedies exist.
Whether an aggrieved person has alternative remedies such as approaching Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before filing a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶18
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 392
T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal and othersRelied on¶30
T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal and others, 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 751
Charanjit Kaur
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
