Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.3.2009 Sharanjeet Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Swaran Sandhir, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 13. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 13388 of 2009 Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. Rejoinder along with Annexures P16 to P18 is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 The present petition has been preferred by Sharanjeet Kaur by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that FIR be registered against respondents No.6 to 13 who are Advocates practicing at Civil Courts Phagwara. It is stated that respondents No. 6 to 13 had forcibly entered into the house of petitioner, Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 (O&M) 2 gave beatings to her and used filthy language. A further prayer has been made that the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh be directed to get the matter investigated from some higher officer as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Phillaur had not conducted the enquiry fairly. Petitioner, on 16.5.2008, had lodged the report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Phillaur, in which she stated that Harminder Syal, Advocate, and his wife and other 40-50 Advocates of Phagwara, had come to her house. She was alone. They knocked at the door and they forcibly entered into her house and stated that they would not say anything to the complainant. They further stated that they had come to take away the daughter of petitioner namely Gurcharanjit Kaur as a case was registered against her in Phagwara. Subsequently, on 23.5.2008, complaint (Annexure P2) was submitted. On 11.6.2008, another application was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, in which it was stated that no action is being taken by the police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Phillaur, had conducted enquiry and submitted his report (Annexure P4), wherein he held that the complaints submitted by the petitioner are not true. The petitioner had reiterated the allegations in his statement made by her which has been annexed as Annexure P5. In support of the allegations, she had examined one Jatinder Sharma whose statement has been annexed as Annexure P6. On 31.7.2008, the Station House Officer, Police Station Phillaur held that there is no substance in the allegations made by the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 (O&M) 3 The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, vide letter (Annexure P12) on 19.9.2008 held that there is no truth in the applications submitted by the petitioner. On the observation made by this Court that since no truth has been found in the allegations made by the petitioner, if so advised, petitioner may take recourse to alternative remedy available to her, under law, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon resolutions passed by the Bar Association, Phagwara, whereby members of the Bar had condemned the conduct of the petitioner. Vide Annexure P17, Phillaur Bar had observed no work on 13.5.2008. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a resolution (Annexure P18) passed by the District Bar Association, Jalandhar, whereby no work for 13.5.2008 was observed to show solidarity with respondents No.6 to 13. The counsel for petitioner states that no Advocate is available to file complaint in view of resolutions passed by Bar Associations at Phagwara, Phillaur and Jalandhar. Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 to 13 has agreed that he has no objection in case petitioner is allowed to institute a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the Courts of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. In view of the agreement arrived between the parties, petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to alternative remedy available to her under law by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the Courts at Chandigarh. Counsel for respondents No.6 to 13 has agreed that they shall Criminal Misc. No. M-29265 of 2008 (O&M) 4 not raise any objection to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts at Chandigarh. Complainant is permitted to file complaint at competent Court of jurisdiction at Chandigarh, who will decide the case on merits. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 17, 2009 “DK”