116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] (O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2017 [ENTITY] Petitioner VERSUS [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. [ENTITY], J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under [SECTION] [ACT]
against [ENTITY] and other respondents for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to take appropriate legal action on the complaints filed against the respondents No.5 to 12 etc. and to protect life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that there is threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner and investigation in the complaints should be conducted fairly and impartially.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
The perusal of the record nowhere shows that there is any serious threat to the petitioner. Neither specific particulars have been mentioned that on which date, in which month and year the threat was given 1 of 4 nor any injury etc. has been caused. Therefore, I find that no ground is made out for providing security to the petitioner.
As regarding the prayer that investigation in the complaints should be conducted fairly and properly, I find that the petitioner has the remedy to approach learned Judicial Magistrate under [SECTION] [ACT] for the above-said relief. The petitioner has also alternative remedy to file criminal complaint. 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] [ACT] 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] [ACT], then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under [SECTION] [ACT] 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] [ACT] before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under [SECTION] 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] [ACT] 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] [ACT], 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,
2 of 4 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] [ACT] 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] and [SECTION] [ACT] before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under [SECTION].
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] [ACT] or other police officer referred to in [SECTION] [ACT] If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in [SECTION] his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under [SECTION] [ACT] instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under [SECTION] [ACT] Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] Why then should writ petitions or [SECTION] 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] [ACT] 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 [SECTION] and [SECTION] before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under [SECTION] [ACT] before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under [SECTION] [ACT]
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to 3 of 4 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 [PRECEDENT].
As the petitioner has alternative remedies as stated in the above-said case, especially to approach the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, this petition cannot be entertained and the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to avail alternative remedies.
February 17, 2017 ([ENTITY]) [ENTITY] JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No 4 of 4