Crl. Misc. No. M-9518 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9518 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 29, 2011 Gursewak Singh and another ........................................ Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ..................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. G.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition to enable him to approach the authorities under Section 156 (3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392 wherein the observations of the Supreme Court are as under:- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-9518 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] 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.PC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154 (3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC.” Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. 29.3.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE