Crl. Misc. No. M-9974 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9974 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 1, 2011 Jakir ....................................................................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana 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: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 11.3.2011 the accused persons came to the house of the petitioner and took away two buffaloes after pin pointing a pistol. A representation was made to the Superintendent of Police, Mewat, on 11.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the accused attacked the petitioner and his brother Sohrab on 20.3.2011. After receipt of injuries, Sohrab son of Ibrahim, was taken to CHC, Nuh,where medical examination was conducted. On 21.3.2011, DDR No.21 was registered after considering the necessary MLRs (Annexures P2 to P4). After making detailed representations to Deputy Commissioner, Mewat, and Superintendent of Police, Mewat, no action is being taken on the DDR Crl. Misc. No. M-9974 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] No.21 dated 21.3.2011. A prayer has been made to register an FIR under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act against Kasham, Asham sons of Ibrahim and Majidan wife of Kasham and Farida wife of Asham, resident of village Chandeni, District Mewat. The Supreme Court in D.Venkatasubramaniam & Others v. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Another 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.) 318 has observed that a direction cannot be given under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for either conducting the investigation in a particular manner or giving a direction for registering an FIR. Proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-9974 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] 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.” Disposed of as such. 1.4.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE