Dismissed

Suresh Chander and Anr. v. U.T. Administration and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2023CWP/20493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a directed FIR in a civil dispute. The Court held there was pending litigation between parties and directed the petitioners to avail alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

The petition for issuance of writ under Article 226 to direct registration of FIR is dismissed. Petitioners are directed to avail alternative remedies.

Suresh Chander and Anr. Vs U.T… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-20493-2022 (O&M) Date of decision-25.01.2023

¶3

Suresh Chander and another ...Petitioners Vs. U.T. Administration and others ...Respondents

¶4

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

¶5

Present: Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶6

¶7

MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral)

¶8

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to take action on the representation dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-9), wherein a request has been made to respondents No.2 to 4 to take note of his complaint for registration of a criminal case against respondent No.5 under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶9

Learned counsel submits that private respondent No.5 and his accomplice Anil Kaushal have been repeatedly harassing the petitioners, by levelling false allegations and extorting money from them. He submits that the petitioners, their son-Amit Kaushik and his wife Meenakshi had jointly purchased immovable property bearing H.No.63, Sector 19A, Chandigarh through sale deed dated 05.08.2020 (Annexure P-2), from vendors Naresh

¶10

GEETA RANI 2023.02.06 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶11

CWP-20493-2022 (O&M) -2-

¶12

Kaushal-respondent No.5 and Anil Kaushal, but the said transaction was challenged by the respondent No.5 through a civil suit seeking a declaration that the instrument is illegal, null and void. Apart from it, respondent No.5 also filed a complaint against the petitioners in order to blackmail them, however the Chandigarh Police upon enquiring the complaint, found the dispute to be of civil nature. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to various events contained in Para No.2 of the petition, and submitted that respondent No.5 is continuously troubling the petitioners, therefore, a representation/complaint was given by petitioner No.1 to the official respondents No.2 to 4. He submits that no action has been taken upon the same and no FIR has been registered on the basis of the said representation, therefore, the interference is warranted by this Court by way of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering the averments contained in the writ petition as well as the prayer made in the representation (Annexure P-9), this Court finds that petitioner No.1 has given details of various transactions between the parties and requested the official respondents to register a criminal case against respondent No.5. During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by learned counsel that there had been litigation between the parties and even the petitioners have invoked the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶14

Thus, considering the contents of the representation dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-9) as well as the prayer made therein, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercising the extraordinary writ

¶15

GEETA RANI 2023.02.06 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

-3-

¶17

CWP-20493-2022 (O&M)

¶18

jurisdiction as for redressal of their grievance, the petitioners can avail the alternative remedy available to them, in accordance with law.

¶19

Dismissed.

¶20

25.01.2023		(MA	NOJ BAJAJ) JUDGE
geeta
	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes	No
	Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶21

GEETA RANI 2023.02.06 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Suresh Chander and Anr. v. U.T. Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chander and Anr. v. U.T. Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Policemen Welfare Gas Agency Vs State of Punjab and Others

Joginder Singh Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Ambala and Another

Renu Arora Vs Union of India and Others

Rajesh Vs Union of India and Others

Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Raj Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ambala and Others