Criminal Misc. No. M-9277 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-9277 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 Gurmukh Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondents No.5 to 7. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking a direction that respondent No.2 should decide the representation dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure P3) and also register a case against respondents No.5 to 7. Grievance of the petitioner is that in Police Station itself not only beatings were given to him but offence under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also committed. Notice of motion was issued. Bhupinder Singh Sidhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Criminal Misc. No. M-9277 of 2009 2 Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, has filed a written statement by way of affidavit on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Reliance has been placed on Panchayati Compromise to which petitioner is signatory. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this compromise is a result of coercion and duress. Signatures of petitioner were obtained by the police officials forcibly against his wishes. The Inquiry Report has also been submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Industrial Area, Ludhiana. He stated therein that he had examined the witnesses of the complainant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to conclusion that there is no substance in the complaint preferred by the petitioner. Mr. Dadwal, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that once the complaint has been made and it disclose cognizable offence, it is incumbent upon the police officials to register the case and then only the matter can be inquired into. Whether the compromise was effected; Whether the signatures were obtained by the police officials forcibly or were appended willfully; is a matter of fact which cannot be determined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It will be in the interest of petitioner that he institute a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and avail his alternative remedy so that in fact and circumstances of the case, law can take its own course. I have perused the grievance of the petitioner as narrated in the representation (Annexure P3). The offence has been disclosed on basis of oral assertion. It is not a case where investigation is required, If Criminal Misc. No. M-9277 of 2009 3 a complaint is instituted in the Court of Area Magistrate, and in support of the same witnesses depose then their evidentiary value will be tested by the Court. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 16, 2009 “DK”