In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:30.7.2010 Mukesh Singh Chauhan and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking the following prayers:- “1. direct the respondents No.1 to 4, to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners which is endangered at the hands of the respondents No.5 to 10, in the interest of justice. 2. direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to take appropriate action in accordance with law in order to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners which is endangered at the hands of the respondents No.5 to 10 in the interest of justice. 3. direct the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against S.H.O., PS – Mohindergarh who has failed to discharge his duty whereby he has failed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and has deliberately not discharged his duty in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. Cr. Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 [2] 4. direct the respondents No.1 & 4 to provide protection to the petitioners, as they are having imminent danger to their life and liberty at the hands of the respondents No.5 to 10 in the interest of justice. 5. direct the respondents No.1 – 4 for not to arrest the petitioners in case any FIR U/s 498-A/406/506/34 IPC got registered at any police station within the jurisdiction of either respondent No.1 or 3, in the interest of justice. 6. direct the respondents No. 1 – 4 to give at least 7 days notice prior to registration of FIR U/s 498-A/406/506/34 IPC, in the interest of justice. 7. direct the concerned Sessions Court to consider the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners on the same day if filed in the case registered U/s 498-A/406/506/34 IPC. 8. any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate keeping in view the nature circumstances of the controversy of the present case.” The prayers as reproduced above are quite omnibus, however, the factual position as has been mentioned is that Mukesh Singh Chauhan (petitioner No.1) was married to Smt. Sunita Tanwar (respondent No.5) on 28.4.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Respondent No.5 resided with petitioner No.1 for 30-35 days and thereafter she left his company on 20.10.2009. She has gone to her parents house and has not returned since then. It is submitted that even during the short stay of respondent No.5 with petitioner No.1, she went in and out on her own. Besides, her behavior was very bad and cruel towards the petitioners. She Cr. Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 [3] wanted to live separately on her own and she also raised meaningless demands. Petitioner No.1 decided to live separately and he along with respondent No.5 shifted their residence, however, even after shifting respondent No.5 did not want to live with petitioner No.1. Later, the petitioners came to know that she (respondent No.5) has having illicit relations with respondent No.10. The said fact, it is submitted, can be proved from the call records between the two. Despite making efforts by petitioner No.1, respondent No.5 did not understand. She rather confessed regarding her extra-marital affairs with respondent No.10. In order to sort out the matter petitioner No.1 discussed the issue with his brother-in-law Rakesh Kumar (respondent No.8), however, he also did not give any help and rather stated that they had no control on respondent No.10. He said that he would implicate the petitioner in a false dowry case. He also said that father of the petitioner No.1 i.e. petitioner No.3 is a Government employee and he would get him rusticated from service. It is submitted that threats to murder the petitioners and get them implicated in false dowry cases were held out. On 22.10.2009, respondent No.5 called her father Dhan Singh (respondent No.6) and she went to her parental home. When she left, the entire jewellery, all ornaments and articles were taken by her. Since the day respondent No.5 left her matrimonial home with her father (respondent No.6) she has not returned back. It is submitted that on 19.12.2009 Hanuman Singh Chauhan (petitioner No.3) who is the father of petitioner No.1 went to bring back respondent No.5, however, respondents No.5 to 10 misbehaved with the father (petitioner No.3) of petitioner No.1. All the family members of respondent No.5 were not willing to send her back. Cr. Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 [4] Since then, it is submitted that respondent No.5 and her family members which includes respondents No.6 to 9 and her friend Billu alias Virender Tanwar continuously threatened the petitioners that they would finish them and get them behind bars. The allegations as made in the petition relate to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 on the basis of which the omnibus prayers as have been mentioned above have been made. It may be noticed that Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such order as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. However, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, this Court is normally not to pass orders for registration of cases and initiate action against Police officials on the mere allegations of their failure to discharge their duties. In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, this Court cannot ignore other statutory provisions dealing with the subject. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are residual source of power which this Court is to exercise to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice so as to do complete justice between the parties. The powers cannot be used to supplant substantive law applicable to the case. In fact, the very nature of power sets limits on the Court within which the powers are to be exercised and ordinarily it cannot be in disregard to a statutory provision governing the subject. In respect of seeking direction to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner which is stated to be in danger from respondents No.5 to 10, the petitioners have a remedy to seek preventive measure in terms of Chapter-VIII Cr.P.C. Insofar as directions for registration of a FIR are concerned the proper course is to lodge FIR with the Officer In-charge of Cr. Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 [5] the Police Station in terms of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. and if that does not yield any result, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. Even if that does not address the grievance, the complainant has a remedy in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. In Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC), it was observed that the correct position in law is that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to their notice show that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the Police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C are to be adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC), it was observed by the Supreme Court that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper Cr. Misc. No.M-21855 of 2010 [6] investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In view of the above, this Court normally is not to issue directions to register a FIR. As regards the action sought against the Police officials the petitioner may in the first instance approach the higher Police officials in the hierarchy of administration. Therefore, the petitioners having other alternative remedies seeking the issuance of any direction by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be wholly improper besides being premature. Therefore, the petitioners may avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition being premature is dismissed. July 30, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*