IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-49728 of 2007 Date of decision : August 11, 2009 Madhu Gupta ....Petitioner versus Station House Officer and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 1 and 2 Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate, for respondent no. 3 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Madhu Gupta has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C. ) for directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to register criminal case (FIR) against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for various offences. Notice of motion was issued in the case to respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Police, Moga) and respondent no. 3 (Rajesh Gupta) only. Petitioner is wife of respondent no. 3. They have strained relations. The petitioner's allegation is that respondent no. 3 took away her shares and got the same transferred in his name on the basis of forged signatures of the petitioner and the petitioner had never applied for the transfer of the shares. Criminal Misc. No. M-49728 of 2007 -2- Stand of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their reply is that during inquiry, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were summoned and the record produced by them revealed that the disputed shares had since been re-transferred in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer summoned the petitioner to explain her position but she did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and therefore, the complaint made by the petitioner was filed. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 adopts the reply already filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the inquiry, it has been found that the offences were committed by the private respondents but inspite thereof, the police authorities have not taken necessary action in accordance with law merely on the ground that the shares have been re-transferred in the name of the petitioner. The contention cannot be accepted because there is no such finding in the inquiry conducted by the police authorities. The only finding is that the shares had been re-transferred in the name of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. In exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., registration of FIR cannot be ordered because the petitioner has other efficacious remedy to approach the Illaqua Magistrate who has power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of the FIR if deemed appropriate or to himself take cognizance of the complaint under section 190 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Criminal Misc. No. M-49728 of 2007 -3- Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others, 2007(3) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 2269 and Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., 2007(5) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 3910, has held that High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. should not order registration of the FIR. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of any other remedy available to her under the law. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 11, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'