Crl.Misc.No.M-2540 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-2540 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2011 Harish Kumar Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr.I.K.Mehta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.IPS Kohli, & Mr.Arun Kumar Bakshi, Advocates, for the petitioners. Ms.Gurvin H.Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Amit Rawal,Advocate, for respondent No.5. --- Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct a fair, honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation in the complaint dated 10.01.2008 in furtherance of investigation report of ASI dated 17.05.2008 both recommending registration of a case under sections Crl.Misc.No.M-2540 of 2010 2 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against respondents No.5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in pursuance to the complaint, Annexure P.1, the matter was investigated by the SHO who submitted his report dated 17.05.2008 and similar report was also submitted by SHO Police Station Division No.8 i.e. report dated 4.08.2008. However, in total disregard of the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recommended that the case was of civil nature, as a result of which no FIR has been registered till date. Learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioners submitted that on the basis of same set of allegations a civil suit was filed by M/s AVR Engineering. The said suit has been decreed in favour of AVR Engineering as such no criminal offence is made out against the respondents, S.S.Mehta and company are the lawyers firm. As per Section 142 (3) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 nothing in this section: “shall render a legal practitioner or a registered trade marks agent liable to an action under this Section in respect of an act done by him in his professional capacity on behalf of a client”; as such no offence is even made out against the respondents. Heard. Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable cases-- (1) xx xx (2) xx xx Crl.Misc.No.M-2540 of 2010 3 (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned”. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392, wherein, it is 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. Para 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 discharge 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 concerned police officers, 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 Cr.PC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-2540 of 2010 4 alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” It is not disputed that civil suit was filed by AVR Engineering which has been decreed in their favour. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the legal remedies or alternative remedy as available. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) 19.05.2011 Judge rp