Criminal Misc. No. M- 8824 of 2018 (OM) 1

110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 8824 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision : March 01, 2018

Gurdev Singh …..Petitioner

Versus
State of Punjab and others ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
LISA GILL, J.

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to

respondent No. 4 – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to

investigate/enquire into the murder of the petitioner’s brother, which

allegedly took place in the year 2014. It is argued that respondent No. 5

– wife of the deceased initiated numerous false and frivolous litigations

against the petitioner and his family members including criminal

proceedings under Section 376 IPC which have been found to be false.

The petitioner’s son and others were acquitted in one of the said

proceedings. Civil suit initiated by respondent No. 5 was dismissed in

default.

The petitioner, it is submitted, had earlier filed CRM-M-

664-2017 for issuance of directions to the police authorities to decide

his representation dated 22.08.2014. The said petition was disposed of

on 13.01.2017 (Annexure P-13) while directing respondent No.

2/Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur to decide the said

representation moved way back in the year 2014 by passing a speaking

1 of 4
18-03-2018 00:38:23 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 8824 of 2018 (OM) 2

order. The petitioner’s representation was decided as reflected in report

dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P-14). Both the parties were associated in

the enquiry. Statements of persons named therein were recorded. It is

mentioned that both parties were present at the time of cremation of the

petitioner’s brother. Post mortem was not conducted. It is recommended

after considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the

complaint be filed. Aggrieved therefrom this petition has been filed

seeking investigation of the matter to be handed over to CBI –

respondent No. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri

Vasu v. State of U.P., 2007(5) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 3910 as

under:-

“24. In view of the abovementioned 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 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 registration 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 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

2 of 4
18-03-2018 00:38:24 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 8824 of 2018 (OM) 3

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 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) Cr.P.C.

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

3 of 4
18-03-2018 00:38:24 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 8824 of 2018 (OM) 4

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.”

In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has an

efficacious alternate remedy. No exceptional or extra ordinary

circumstance is pointed out which calls for interference by this Court in

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Needless to say the

petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy/remedies as may be available

to him in accordance with law.

Present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Lisa Gill)
March 01, 2018 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
18-03-2018 00:38:24 :::