CRM No. M 7175 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 7175 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Gurjant Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Dr. Surya Kant, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to register a case FIR against the police officers/officials and others for committing various cognizable offences in conspiracy with each other and others from whom they accepted heavy bribe/money for keeping the petitioner in illegal confinement even after the bail was granted to the petitioner in a case planted on him under Arms Act by them and during his illegal confinement reports were changed and the ladies i.e. wife, sister, mother etc. of the petitioner were got attacked by them after trespassing his house and further directing respondent No. 1 to transfer the investigation to the CBI or any other independent agency as CRM No. M 7175 of 2008 2 the local police and officers are involved in commission of various offences. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2009, had directed the State to file their additional affidavit mentioning the details as to on what dates the petitioner was arrested and on what dates he was released in the three FIRs. Accordingly, in pursuance to the same, a short reply of C S Rao, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad dated 31.08.2009 was filed, explaining the various dates when the petitioner was arrested and released thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the same and after arguing for some time prayed for time to file counter to the state reply. Copy of the State reply was supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the same day i.e. 31.08.2009. No counter has been filed till date. As such, the matter cannot be adjourned any further. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U P and others reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392, held that 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. Paras 27 and 28 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “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 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has CRM No. M 7175 of 2008 3 not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” In view of the present controversy and reply filed by the State and taking into account the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case Sakiri Vasu (supra), if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is relegated to the alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint or to avail of any other remedy as may be available in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 01.03.2011 mohan